JOAN DEANE has never told her story before. It is a tragic tale, of course, as is any story that involves the brutal killing of a beloved son. But for Joan Deane, it is an all too typical story as well, involving as it does utter frustration with the legal system.

Her son Russell was not killed during a drunken brawl after a fight outside a pub or club, but at home on a Friday evening as he watched a movie with his new girlfriend and their flatmate. He had recently split with the mother of his 18-month-old daughter Nina, but had soon become involved with a woman called Jane Johnson. He met her in a night club and within months was living with her and her friend Gemma in Drogheda. After another eight months Jane Johnson moved on and Russell Deane began a relationship with Gemma. He never could have envisaged that this complicated love triangle would prompt his inevitable death.

While he had only been going out with Jane Johnson for a matter of months, she was upset about the split and his new relationship with her friend, Gemma. One night while Jane hung out with her brother and his two friends in a pub in Drogheda, an argument by text message began between Jane and Russell. This aggravated her brother and his friends, who decided in a moment of bravado that they were going to the house Russell shared with Gemma to "sort it out".

Incensed by the text message row, Jane's brother Mark Johnson, and his friends Robert Heaney and Christopher Wood, hopped in a taxi and headed to Russell's rented house.

Instead of knocking on the front door they sneaked around the back of the house. Christopher Wood went into the garden shed and found three items that the young men would use as weapons . . . a pick axe, the handle of a garden shovel and a golf stick. He handed out the weapons, keeping the pick axe for himself. Christopher Wood had never even met Russell Deane before.

They let themselves in through the unlocked patio door. It was 11.30pm and Russell was seated on the couch watching the movie About a Boy with girlfriend Gemma and their new flat mate Pamela. He was attacked from behind, first by Jane's brother Mark Johnson and then hit twice by Wood with the pick axe.

The girls ran upstairs and called the police while the violent assault continued.

One of the three assailants, Robert Heaney, remained in the hall during the attack on Russell, but helped smash up the living room afterwards. He was the youngest of the three, aged just 18; the other two were in their early twenties.

The three assailants then went off to a night club and then on to a party, leaving Russell Deane for dead. Interestingly, neither drugs nor alcohol were a feature in this assault. While some alcohol was consumed by the three assailants before the attack, none of them claimed to be inebriated during the trial.

Russell died ten minutes after his parents arrived at the hospital on the night of the assault. He never regained consciousness after he was attacked. His family never got to see him to say goodbye. He died ostensibly from serious head injuries but also had broken ribs, collapsed lungs, and shattered limbs. His body had been beaten from head to toe.

The next day the three responsible went into the gardai and confessed. But for his mother Joan and her family there were still so many unanswered questions. It was not until the trial began a year later that they truly discovered how pointless his death had been. "It was a relief to know that there were no dark secrets in Russell's life. I feel now that the trial is over that we have him back to ourselves, and we can remember him the way he really was, with no doubts and no more confusion as to why it happened."

On the 31 January 2004 the trial of all three accused began. Just over a week later Judge Barry White collapsed the trial when two tabloids ran headlines describing the three accused as "brutes", while a broadsheet ran an article about Russell's killing that contained obvious mistakes.

"I was wiped out, just devastated, " said Joan, who has since gone on to co-found AdVic (Advocates for the Victims of Homicide). The family were left in limbo until the new trial began in November 2005. This trial went on for three weeks and there was no media reporting. The jury found Heaney not guilty of murder, but he did receive a suspended sentence for criminal damage and armed trespass.

Jane's brother Mark Johnson was found guilty of manslaughter. But the jury was deadlocked on the guilt of pick-axe wielding Wood. The judge ordered a retrial.

The new trial took place in June of this year. It lasted just one week and Wood was found guilty of manslaughter. Joan was disappointed he was not found guilty of murder. "Wood took charge of what happened, he organised the weapons and he got off lightly." And she was further disappointed by the sentence . . . Johnson got seven years. Wood got eight years. They both received sentences for criminal damage and armed trespass too . . . to run concurrently. "I at least hoped for a double figure sentence.

I thought the sentence was too lenient. After all they will both be out in just five years."

However upsetting and frustrating Joan found the court process and sentence, she was just as shellshocked by tactics adopted by Wood's defence team. "Wood's defence team caused the problems;

the other two defence teams caused no problems. I felt that Wood's solicitor Michael Hennessy was watching me intently any time an emotive issue arose."

During the very first case Joan gasped and left the room when the prosecution suddenly produced the pick axe that had been used to kill her son. "I wasn't expecting to see it, when I saw the shape of the weapon I got a real shock." The defence asked Judge Barry White to discharge the jury. The judge however felt that Joan's response was perfectly understandable, and asked the prosecution to warn the family before producing such evidence again.

On another occasion tears rolled down Joan's face when Jane Johnson, Russell's ex-girlfriend, gave evidence. "I had asked the gardai what I should do if I felt tears coming on during the trial and they said I could cry if I wanted to, I was under no obligation to leave court." Silent tears rolled down her face but she insists she was not "making a scene". "It is not as if I was the only one who cried on occasion during the trial. Other people became emotional as well, but they were not pulled up on it."

Again the defence asked the judge to discharge the jury. "Luckily Judge Phillip O'Sullivan basically told them to get real. He pointed out that he had seen and heard nothing as did the prosecution counsel." But instructing solicitor for Christopher Wood, Michael Hennessy, then went on the stand to give evidence saying he had seen Joan crying. At this stage Joan felt that she was on trial herself. "I felt like they didn't want me in the court room, even though it was my right to be there.

I was also absolutely terrified that the case would collapse again, but this time it would be my fault. I became a nervous wreck."

During all three trials the defence asked for the family to be moved from their designated seating. All three judges refused this request.

Ironically, AdVic had fought hard to secure reserved seating especially for families of victims during court cases . . . and had been recently granted such space.

After the trial Joan wrote to the Law Society of Ireland to complain about the conduct of solicitor Michael Hennessy. She received a prompt reply informing her that although they were sympathetic to her plight, it is the job of the defence team to defend their client to the best of their abilities "without fear or favour to any third party", and that the obligation to ensure a fair trial rests in the hands of the presiding judge, so they could not accept her complaint against the solicitor. Joan then wrote to the Independent Adjudicator of the Law Society two months ago. She has not received any reply.

According to Joan, most families of homicide victims enjoy a positive relationship with the gardai, but the trouble starts when the case goes to court and they begin to feel divorced from the whole process.

The only role a victim of crime can really play in the court process, besides acting as a witness for the state, is the giving of a Victim Impact Statement after the jury has handed down its verdict, and before sentencing.

However, judges have discretion in this matter when dealing with the families of dead victims. Joan gave her Victim Impact statement in June 2006 just four months after Majella Holohan's unexpected tirade against Wayne O'Donoghue when she departed from her own pre-vetted Victim Impact Statement. "The VIS is censored by the courts. There was so much more I wanted to add that I couldn't add, at that stage I was just so intimidated, " said Joan.

"I don't blame Majella Holohan, I understand her frustration. The defence can say all sorts of things about the victim, but the prosecution can say very little about the accused. There is nobody to speak for the dead victim during the court case. In Wood's case his mother, employer and members of his local football team all gave him character references during the trial. Why couldn't I give the jury a character reference on my son who had lost his life? I really think we treat juries like morons . . . so much is kept from them."

She is similarly frustrated with the relatively short sentences that are handed down for unlawful killing. AdVic wants a life sentence to mean serving at least 15 years in prison, and heavier sentences for manslaughter. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the process of a criminal trial does have a cathartic effect on victims of crime. Now that the process is all over Joan feels she can move on in life.

"I feel that I have faced evil and coped. I discovered a strength I didn't even know I had."