Men jailed for life for attack on man attending stag do fail to overturn convictions
Fiona Magennis
Two men jailed for life for murdering a father-of-two in an “extraordinarily savage” attack while he was on a Stag night have failed in their attempt to have their convictions overturned on appeal.
Philip Disney (30) of Donomore Crescent, Tallaght and Sean Carlyle (32), with an address at Donomore Avenue in the West Dublin suburb, had denied murdering Vincent Parsons near the Killinarden Inn on the night of August 24th, 2019 but were found guilty by a unanimous jury verdict in December 2022.
The 34-year-old was murdered by the two Dublin men after the trial heard he had too much to drink at a stag do, became “messy” and irritated Disney.
Evidence was heard during the trial that after an altercation, Disney said something to Mr Parsons causing him to run from the pub, but he and Carlyle followed the victim in a van and fatally assaulted him on a nearby green area.
They were both sentenced to life imprisonment by Mr Justice Kerida Naidoo at the Central Criminal Court in January 2023.
After the sentence was handed down, Carlyle baited the grieving family of Vincent Parsons and their supporters by smirking and insulting them before being led away by gardaí.
During the sentencing hearing, Mr Parson’s wife Clare said that she had never seen her husband in an altercation and that he saw the good in life and was willing to help “a friend, a colleague or neighbour”. She said her world and that of their two children had “fallen apart” since Vincent’s death.
Disney and Carlyle launched appeals in a bid to have their convictions overturned last May.
However, the Court of Appeal on Tuesday upheld their convictions, with Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy dismissing all grounds raised by both men.
CCTV
At the hearing last July, Bernard Condon SC, representing Disney argued that the admission into evidence of a CCTV montage clip which showed Disney “dancing” in a pub after the fatal assault was “highly prejudicial”.
Counsel suggested the judge should not have allowed the clip to be played as part of the montage. He said the footage invited the jury to speculate that this was a "demonstration” of what had been done.
Dismissing this ground, Mr Justice McCarthy said the court was right to admit this CCTV footage into evidence.
Mr Condon also argued the prosecution could not show “an act that had been done” by Disney, adding that the height of the case against his client was “some concept of support or encouragement”.
It was also argued that the trial judge made an error in failing to direct an acquittal following an application from the defence.
Mr Justice McCarthy said the court was also dismissing these grounds, rejecting the contention that the judge was wrong not to direct an acquittal.
It was further suggested gardaí had “cajoled” a comment out of Disney during the course of a search at his home, when clothing was seized by asking him if the items were the clothes he had been wearing on the night. He said gardaí did not engage with proper procedures and no caution was given.
Mr Justice McCarthy said the court rejected the proposition that there was any question of any infringement of Disney’s rights in the context of the search.
Another ground of appeal advanced was that the jury should have been discharged after one of their members disclosed to the court that they recognised the name of a deceased garda who played a “prominent part” in the investigation.
However, the Court of Appeal found the judge was right to refuse the application to discharge the jury. Mr Justice McCarthy noted the juror did not know the guard in question and had never met them but recognised the name because the guard was a friend of the juror’s brother-in-law.
Dominic McGinn SC, on behalf of Carlyle, submitted the trial judge made an error in ruling that comments made by his client when gardaí executed a search warrant at his home could be admitted in evidence at the trial.
Counsel said one incident related to the ownership of a van, while another conversation involved questions about a cut on Carlyle’s hand which he said happened while he was boxing.
Rejected grounds
Rejecting these grounds, Mr Justice McCarthy said the trial judge had ruled on these matters and the court agreed with his ruling. He said it has been repeatedly stated that nothing prevents an officer of the law asking questions, but citizens are not obliged to answer them.
Mr McGinn also argued that the trial judge erred in refusing an application before the trial started to exclude inference interviews conducted with Carlyle. He suggested the manner in which the inference interviews proceeded was unfair, unlawful and a breach of his client’s right to a fair trial.
Mr Justice McCarthy noted Carlyle did not answer certain questions when they were put to him by gardaí. He said Carlyle “may or may not” have had reasons for this but the court found this evidence was admissible.
Hearing
“The refusal to answer is of evidential value,” he said, ruling the judge was right to refuse the application to exclude these interviews.
During the appeal hearing, the three-judge panel viewed a portion of footage from the montage of CCTV seen by the jury in the trial.
Lorcan Staines, for the DPP, said the footage showed Carlyle and Disney in the pub and Disney having an exchange with Mr Parsons.
He said the CCTV also showed Mr Disney “having to be held back” from Mr Parsons and the deceased “almost immediately” taking off sprinting from the pub.
Mr Staines said the pathology evidence showed Mr Parson’s sustained an “extraordinarily savage beating”. He said after the attack, the men returned to the pub in each other’s company.
