The jury is considering verdicts in the Riad Bouchaker trial. 

The 52-year-old faces eight charges in relation to an alleged knife attack on Parnell Square in November 2023. He denies all charges. 

Yesterday, the jury was sent out to consider its verdicts, following weeks of evidence. 

Before they left the courtroom, Mr Justice Tony Hunt asked them to approach their task logically and forensically. 

He spent a period of time instructing them on the legal principles before them and summarising the evidence. 

The judge also spoke to them about the presumption of innocence that Mr Bouchaker is entitled to. 

Mr Justice Hunt also explained what the legal system means by a burden of proof, noting that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove its case. 

He also spoke about the standard of proof. 

“To prove any of the allegations against Mr Bouchaker, the prosecution must satisfy the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt,” Courts Correspondent Frank Greaney recounted on All Rise: The Riad Bouchaker Trial.

“That is a high but not impossible standard of proof. 

“And it differs to civil cases; this is clearly a criminal case - Mr Bouchaker is facing criminal charges. 

“The judge actually used Conor McGregor's civil rape trial to make the point, to explain the difference between the standard of proof in civil and criminal cases.

“The standard of proof required in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities.”

The jury have been told that they must have no reason to doubt the correctness of the prosecution’s case in each of the eight charges. 

They must consider each allegation separately and were instructed that a guilty verdict in one count does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of any of the other charges. 

Mr Bouchaker is accused of three counts of attempted murder, intentionally or recklessly causing serious harm to Leanne Flynn, assault causing harm to two other children and a man who disarmed. 

“There is also the knife offence; the attempted murder charges - they're the most serious offences,” Mr Greaney said. 

“They contain two essential elements, both of which have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Firstly, the prosecution must prove the alleged acts came very close to causing death; it must be an attempt to actually kill somebody - anything short of that is not enough.

“The degree of injury the jury was told is irrelevant; if the jury is satisfied in relation to that element, then they can consider the next one, which is intention to kill.”

If the jury decides the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the attempted murder of the little girl, they can consider an alternative verdict of guilty of causing serious harm. 

In theory, the jury could choose to acquit Mr Bouchaker of this charge but the judge told them he does not think that is likely to be their conclusion.

Main image: Parnell Square. Picture by: Sasko Lazarov/RollingNews.ie.