The Court of Appeal has dismissed Sean Davy’s appeal against his conviction for murdering Thomas (Toddy) Dooley, rejecting his argument that he should have been tried separately from his two co-accused.
Davy was convicted on 4 August 2016 of murdering Dooley in Edenderry on 12 February 2014. His appeal concerned the refusal by McCarthy J to order separate trials. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Birmingham P on 31 July 2018, held that the refusal was within the trial judge’s discretion and that the severance application was properly refused.
The prosecution case at trial was that Davy, James Davy and Matthew Cummins went to Dooley’s home after leaving a party at 178 The Sycamores, Edenderry, and murdered him. Dooley was found there on 16 February 2014 with severe head injuries. The judgment records that the pathologist noted ten blows, injuries to his back and torso, and burn marks from an attempt to set him on fire. CCTV evidence showed the three accused leaving the party in the direction of St Senan’s Court, where Dooley lived, and later disposing of items at a recycling plant. A baseball bat and other items were recovered from a recycling bin.
At the severance hearing, Davy’s counsel argued that his co-accused’s interview accounts placed the central responsibility for using the baseball bat on Davy, risking that his own account would not be heard fairly. The judgment says Davy’s account accepted that he was present and hit Dooley once with the bat, which James Davy had placed in his hand. It also records his account that James Davy had been hitting Dooley and that Cummins used the bat and kicked him. The prosecution argued the case was based on joint enterprise and that the evidence of the three men’s movements together would be undermined by separate trials.
The Court of Appeal said the prosecution had advanced its case on joint enterprise and common design. It noted that the prosecution and trial judge clearly told the jury that each accused’s statement was evidence only against the person who made it, not against the co-accused. The court concluded that Davy’s complaint about the refusal of separate trials had not been made out and dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not revisit the original conviction beyond deciding that appeal issue.