THE JURY HAS begun their deliberations in the trial of a 16-year-old boy accused of murdering Uransetseg Tserendorj as she walked home from work in Dublin’s financial district in January 2020.

Mr Justice Tony Hunt concluded his charge to the jurors this afternoon telling them they must act judicially and not allow sympathy or unnecessary emotion to filter in when making their decision.

“Feelings of sympathy or like or dislike or anger or revulsion – all of those may well be visceral feelings that come up on hearing the evidence but you must look past those,” he told the jury of six men and six women.

He told jurors those feelings must “play no part in your decisions” and said their task was to weigh up the evidence, using their common sense and life experience.

The teenager, who cannot be named because he is a minor, has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Tserendorj but guilty to her manslaughter on 29 January 2021.

The State did not accept his plea.

He has also pleaded guilty to producing a knife and to attempting to rob Tserendorj at a walkway between George’s Dock and Custom House Quay on January 20 2021.

The now 16-year-old was 14 at the time of the incident.

The murder trial at the Central Criminal Court heard Tserendorj was returning home from work at around 9pm on January 20 when she was confronted by the accused asking for money.

When she told him she did not have any money the teenager inflicted the fatal stab wound to her neck which severed her carotid artery.

Tserendorj made her way to Connolly Station where she phoned her husband in distress and told him “I’m dying, please hurry”.

By the time she arrived at the Mater Hospital Tserendorj was struggling to breath and despite the best efforts of medical staff to save her, she was declared dead over a week later on January 29.

The trial also heard the teen again produced a knife later that evening after he tried and failed to steal a phone from a second woman a short time later.

Mr Justice Hunt told the jury before they consider what verdict to return, they must look at the evidence and see what it proves in terms of facts.

He said they must look at the act that caused the fatality and then look at the state of mind of the accused at the time, or the absence of state of mind.

They must also consider what other factors, if any, were of note, including age, immaturity, panic and intoxication, he added.

The judge said the law relating to murder is an unlawful killing where the act of causing death is accompanied by an intention to kill or cause serious injury.

He said one of these was good enough.

He told the jury they do not have to worry about the unlawful nature of the killing as that is conceded.

Lawyers for the State and for the accused delivered their closing speeches in the trial on Monday.

In his closing speech to the jury on Monday, defence counsel Michael O’Higgins SC, said there was no evidence that the accused decided to kill Tserendorj because of frustration visited upon him when he did not get any money.

He said the accused’s intention was to carry out an act of stealing and, if necessary, to use violence or the threat of violence.

He asked the jury to consider whether this was a case where someone with malice aforethought was trying to stick a knife into someone’s neck or was it a chaotic event with pushing and shoving and flailing, and the knife accidentally went into the victim’s neck.

“There is a doubt in this case that there was an intention to cause a serious injury,” he concluded.

Sean Guerin SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said the focus of the case was solely on the accused’s intention.

Intention does not have to be premeditated, counsel said, it can be formed in an instant and dissipate in an instant.

“If the intent to cause serious injury exists and death results, a verdict of guilty to murder is deserved,” he said.

Guerin said CCTV showed there had been not one but two blows struck that were capable of causing the wound that killed Tserendorj.

He said the use of the knife was only “incidentally” related to the robbery. There was no attempt to rifle through her bag.

The accused had, whether in anger or frustration, “lashed out repeatedly”, counsel said.

“This may be a callous, unprovoked and vicious act of thuggery that was intended to cause an injury.”

Guerin said the accused intended the natural and probable consequences of his actions, and that was to cause serious harm.

Mr Justice Hunt told the six men and six women that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if they are not satisfied that the accused intended to kill or cause serious harm then the appropriate verdict is manslaughter.

He told the jury they must be unanimous in their decision.

The jury will resume their deliberations tomorrow.