+34
Daniel Dooley, one of six family members convicted for the 2022 murder of Thomas Dooley in Co Kerry, has lost his appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeal ruled that the circumstantial evidence against him, including his association with co-accused and CCTV footage, was sufficient for the jury's consideration and that the identification by the victim's widow did not render the trial unfair.
One of six family members jailed for the murder of Thomas 'Tom' Dooley has failed to convince the Court of Appeal that his identification by the victim's widow was unfair and should have resulted in the case being withdrawn from the jury.
Ms Justice Nuala Butler said that while the evidence, excluding the widow's identification, against Daniel Dooley (45) was circumstantial, it did not necessarily follow that the evidence was tenuous, weak, vague or inconsistent. She noted that the victim's widow and other witnesses were cross-examined very thoroughly and effectively on the appellant's behalf during the trial.
Dooley, of An Carraigin, Connolly Park, Tralee, Co Kerry had pleaded not guilty to murdering Thomas Dooley at Rath Cemetery, Rathass, Tralee, Co Kerry on October 5, 2022 but was convicted by a majority jury verdict in July 2024. He was one of six defendants - including a teenage boy - who were found guilty of murder by a jury who deliberated for nearly 21 hours over five days at the Central Criminal Court in Cork.
Mr Dooley died after he was violently attacked by six men as he attended a funeral at Rath Cemetery, where he suffered 'savage' injuries inflicted by a group armed with bladed weapons and acting with 'focused and murderous ferocity' in broad daylight. In his closing speech, Dean Kelly SC, prosecuting, submitted to the jury that the six men had used 'medieval violence' to 'butcher' the father-of-seven in 'an honour killing' during the funeral, carrying out a 'biblical atrocity' that was 'tragic and heartbreaking as it was ridiculous and stupid'.
Launching an appeal against Daniel Dooley's conviction last July, Dominic McGinn SC said his core argument was that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury at the close of the prosecution case as a result of unfairness. Mr McGinn said the evidence against Daniel Dooley was 'significantly different' to the evidence against the other accused at the time.
He said the appellant came to be charged 'late in the day' and there was very limited time between him being charged and the trial itself. He said the only evidence against Daniel Dooley was a segment of CCTV that showed him leaving his house and entering a van carrying an implement which was 'long and stick like'. He said there was no evidence any such implement was used on the deceased.
'After the incident, he left the scene with a number of others who were accused of violence, so it really was his association,' said counsel. Mr McGinn said that changed when the deceased's wife, Siobhan Dooley had named Daniel Dooley during the course of her evidence to the trial. He said she indicated 'in direct terms' that Daniel Dooley had been one of those that attacked her husband.
She had initially identified a different person, he said, but during the course of the investigation it was established that this man was in a different location at the time and could not have been at the graveyard. Counsel said that in her direct evidence, Siobhan Dooley said she got confused by the faces because the two men were 'an awful lot alike'.
In delivering the Court of Appeal's judgment today Ms Justice Butler said that this was manifestly not a case where there was no evidence that the alleged crime was committed by the appellant. She said the evidence consistently showed him to have been in the company of a co-accused, while CCTV evidence showed the appellant placing an item, which could have been used as a weapon, in the rear of the co-accused's van.
Ms Justice Butler went on to say the court was satisfied that the evidence against the appellant was more than sufficient for it to be properly open to the jury to draw inferences that he was part of a joint enterprise of 'a pre-planned violent attack' on the deceased.
'Although circumstantial, this evidence cannot fairly be characterised as tenuous, weak or vague,' she said, adding that the question of whether the evidence was credible or reliable and warranted the drawing of those inferences was exclusively a matter for the jury. 'The law does not mandate that any inconsistency in the evidence against an accused person warrants the case being withdrawn from the jury,' said Ms Justice Butler.
She continued: 'The appellant has not established any grounds for believing that the jury in his case were incapable of, or did not fairly assess, the evidence against him prior to reaching their decision to convict him.
Please follow us on Google to support usDooley Murder Appeal Court Of Appeal Ireland Circumstantial Evidence Identification Evidence Joint Enterprise Murder Conviction Thomas Dooley Daniel Dooley
Ireland Latest News, Ireland Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Woman 'played dead' while being strangled by Dublin housemate, court hearsDelivery driver Donatas Jankauskas (44) of Woodlawn Close, Santry, Dublin 9, was charged with assaulting the female lodger at his home
Read more »
Man who died after Blanchardstown attack suffered ‘traumatic’ injuries, court hearsTeenagers physically and verbally attacked Alex Coughlan, court hears, as one of teens denied bail for second time
Read more »
Update on Ian Huntley death as murder accused appears in courtA date has been set for the trial of Anthony Russell, who has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley
Read more »
Court of Appeal Rejects Appeal Against Daniel Dooley's Murder ConvictionThe Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal against the conviction of Daniel Dooley for the murder of his father, Thomas 'Tom' Dooley. Judge Nuala Butler ruled that the evidence against Dooley, excluding the identification by his wife, was circumstantial but not necessarily weak or inconsistent.
Read more »