The judge in the Anastasia Kriegel murder trial today warned the jury people can lie for many reasons.
And he said lies allegedly told by the accused could only be relied on as evidence of guilt if the prosecution had established there was no other innocent explanation.
Mr Justice Paul McDermott was explaining the law at Dublin’s Central Criminal Court.
The accused, who are both 14, have each pleaded not guilty to murdering the Kildare girl at Glenwood House, Laraghcon, Clonee Road in Lucan, Co Dublin, on May 14 last year.
Boy A has also pleaded not guilty to 14-year-old Ana’s aggravated sexual assault in a manner that involved serious violence to her.
Mr Justice McDermott told the jurors murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another, where the person responsible intended to kill or cause serious injury.
He said an element of “great importance” is the requirement that the accused intended to kill or cause serious injury. If the jury was not satisfied they intended to kill, they must con-sider if either or both intended to cause Ana serious injury.
He added: “If you have a reasonable doubt you will acquit.”
The judge said intention does not require “elaborate pre-planning or premeditation” but can arise within a short time frame.
He invited the jury to first consider the evidence against Boy A and then proceed to Boy B because of the “considerable distinctions” between cases.
Referring to Boy A, Mr Justice McDermott said the jury had to establish he carried out the unlawful killing and had committed aggravated sexual assault.
He added: “You must also establish he had intent to kill or cause serious injury because of the way it happened.”
Aggravated sexual assault involves the use or threat of serious violence such as to cause injury, humiliation or degradation to the person assaulted, the judge explained. The case against Boy B is advanced by the prosecution on a different basis as he is alleged to have aided, abetted and assisted in the murder.
It is alleged Boy B lured Ana from her home, knowing she wanted to meet Boy A, knowing there was in fact “no romantic purpose” to the meeting which was going to take place.
The judge added: “It is alleged he handed over Ana to Boy A knowing preparations were made for her murder and sexual assault, he provided builders tape which was found around her neck and participated in covering up his presence.”
But he told the jury: “Presence at the scene of a crime is not participation in a crime.”
The prosecution claim it is not credible Boy B did not know what was to happen to Ana.
The judge said if there was any reasonable possibility he did not, the jury must acquit.
He added there is no forensic evidence against Boy B and it is the prosecution’s case evidence supporting a conviction comes from his own mouth.
Mr Justice McDermott said the jury had a large amount of circumstantial evidence before them, including forensic. They had to distinguish between strands of evidence and mere speculation.
He also said the prosecution case was lies were told to cover up guilt and for no other reason.
However, the judge warned the jury that lies had been told in the past by accused people who were innocent.
He said people lie for many reasons including shame, to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family, out of panic, misjudgment and confusion.
To rely on a lie, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt there was no innocent explanation for the lie.
Addressing Boy B’s interviews with gardai in which he had denied involvement in assisting with Ana’s murder, the judge said: “If on all the evidence you think his version is true and credible, you must acquit.
“If you consider there is a reasonable possibility it is true and credible, you must acquit.”
Mr Justice McDermott will conclude his charge tomorrow.
