The Court of Appeal has dismissed Darren Murphy’s appeal against his conviction for the 2012 murder of Eamon Kelly, rejecting challenges to Garda recognition evidence, the trial court’s common-design finding and discrepancies in CCTV timings.
Murphy was convicted of murder by the Special Criminal Court in November 2021 but acquitted of possessing the firearm used in the killing. His co-accused, identified in the appeal judgment as DK, was acquitted of murder and firearms possession. The appeal court’s judgment was delivered on 19 December 2023.
The prosecution case relied in part on CCTV showing a turquoise Opel Meriva associated with Murphy travelling in convoy with a black Lexus before and after the shooting. The gunman, Sean Connolly, emerged from the Lexus and shot Kelly on Furry Park Road, Dublin, on 4 December 2012. The Lexus was later burned out in Clontarf. Connolly subsequently pleaded guilty to the murder.
Seven Gardaí identified Murphy from footage recorded on the day of the killing, including clips showing a man walking a distinctive dog and a man near the Meriva in Killester. They viewed the footage individually in 2018 under a recorded process led by a sergeant who did not know what investigation it concerned. Twenty-five of the 32 Gardaí who viewed it did not identify Murphy.
Murphy argued that the recognition evidence should have been excluded or given little weight. He pointed to the six-year gap before the viewings, the date stamp on the footage and Gardaí’s earlier access to police records concerning both him and the murder. The Court of Appeal held that the process was sufficiently robust for the evidence to be admitted. It said the trial court had considered the officers’ earlier record access, the delay and the risk of mistaken recognition, and was entitled to accept their evidence about what they knew when they viewed the footage.
The appeal court also rejected Murphy’s claim that the trial court had carried out its own identification of him in court. It read the trial court’s comments as noting an absence of obvious inconsistency between his appearance at trial and the footage, rather than making an identification.
On common design, the appeal court accepted the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence as a whole showed planning, surveillance and a “spotting” role for Murphy. It found no inconsistency between his murder conviction and firearms acquittal: a person could assist a shooting without possessing the gun. It also rejected the argument that the different verdicts for Murphy and DK were inconsistent.
The court was not satisfied that the CCTV timing discrepancies had misled the trial court. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction in place.