Courts

Strokestown eviction vigilantes appeal convictions for roles in ‘mob’ attack

Martin O’Toole (60), PJ Sweeney (59) and Paul Beirne (58) jailed for 15 years each over violent incident in Co Roscommon

Martin O'Toole, Paul Beirne and Patrick Sweeney who were found guilty of their involvement in a violent incident in Falsk, Strokestown, Roscommon in December 2018. Photo Collins Courts
Ryan Dunne
Thu Jul 18 2024 - 19:55

Three men have launched an appeal against their convictions for their part in a vigilante “mob” attack on security personnel guarding a repossessed farmhouse in Roscommon, which a judge found was carried out with “calculated cruelty” designed to create “fear and terror”.

Barristers for Martin O’Toole (60), PJ Sweeney (59) and Paul Beirne (58) argued that certain evidence relating to video footage should not have been admissible during their trial, while it was also submitted that it was not possible to establish their guilt as there were 30 to 40 people involved in the incident.

Their trial heard that a group of armed men smashed their way into a house at a recently repossessed rural property at Falsk, just outside Strokestown, Co Roscommon at about 5am on December 16th, 2018.

These men were armed with weapons including a baseball bat, a meat cleaver, a hurley, a nail-studded stick and a chainsaw as they attacked the security men who were guarding the property.

READ MORE

The security men were beaten and forced to the ground, had their shoes removed and their hands tied with cable ties. The windows and doors of the house were smashed, the men’s vans were set on fire and a Belgian Shepherd dog was beaten unconscious and later had to be put down.

One of the security men said he had a gun put to his head and was ordered to crawl on the ground and eat dog faeces.

[ Strokestown repossession case: Three men sentenced to 15 years each for involvement in ‘mob’ attack ]

The three appellants were each sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty in June of last year of 15 charges in relation to the incident, including aggravated burglary, violent disorder and criminal damage to a door of the house.

Farmer O’Toole of Stripe, Irishtown, Claremorris, Co Mayo; Sweeney, a builder of High Cairn, Ramelton, Co Donegal; and cattle farmer Beirne of Croghan, Boyle, were also found guilty of false imprisonment of and assault causing harm to Ian Gordon, Mark Rissen, John Graham, and Gary McCourtney.

They were further convicted of three counts of arson in relation to three vans and to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal by causing or permitting an animal to be struck on the head.

At their appeal against their convictions, counsel for Sweeney, Michael Bowman SC said that the defence was challenging the admissibility of video footage taken from a body cam worn by one of the security staff, as no records had been maintained about its movement within Garda custody.

Mr Bowman also queried the maintenance of records relating to the identification of his client, as a garda said he identified Sweeney from a still that was pinned on a bulletin board in the Garda station, before he then viewed video footage from the incident.

Counsel for the State, Tony McGillicuddy SC said that stills taken from footage of the incident showed Sweeney holding a chainsaw, while another still showed him holding a yellow item that was a pickaxe handle similar to one recovered from his property.

Mr Bowman went on to say that there was an insufficiency of evidence before the district court to grant warrants to search his client’s property. Concerning the seizure of mobile phones, counsel said that there had been “absolutely no evidence” that such devices were used to organise the attack but a warrant required a reasonable suspicion.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton said that the group involved had all been armed with vicious weapons, with some of them turning up with items “convenient to dismember the human body”, so there was a reasonable suspicion that this was organised through “the digital space”.

Mr Bowman said that concerning the charges of false imprisonment, arson, robbery, and animal cruelty, the verdicts against his client were unsafe or unsatisfactory, as there was no definitive evidence to establish guilt due to there being 30 to 40 people who attended the scene.

Mr Justice Charleton said that common design was discernible from the video footage.

Mr Bowman replied that the video footage captured what happened inside the house, but others had been involved in burning vehicles outside. He said there was no basis to conclude Sweeney was involved in anything else.

Séamus Clarke SC, for Beirne, submitted that there had been an unlawful two-hour detention of the appellant at his home, with an armed response unit guarding the door. He said there was no evidence that the appellant was told he was not obliged to stay at that address during that two-hour period.

Mr Clarke said that the contention was that members of the armed squad stood at the door, and it was for the gardaí to prove that the detention was lawful.

Mr Clarke said that it had been alleged that Beirne, as the driver of a lorry, brought people tp the scene and admitted using a sledgehammer to open the door. Counsel said that nobody could pinpoint who had been involved in the beating of a dog with the bat during the incident, so the prosecution proceeded on the basis of joint enterprise.

Mr Clarke went on to say that concerning the charge of criminal damage, there was such a thing as lawful criminal damage as the owner of the house before it was repossessed had consented to the door being broken in.

To this, Mr Justice Charleton referenced the economic hardship that hit Ireland since 2008, adding that this “misery” had been replicated across the country.

“Nobody is obliged to borrow money, but if they do, they have to pay it back. You’re saying that if in your own mind you believe all of that is nonsense, you’re entitled to go and cause criminal damage,” he said.

Mr Clarke replied that if someone honestly believes there is a bad order made and the owner has consented, then that property can be damaged to reclaim it.

Paul Flannery SC, for O’Toole, said that he had initially received instructions that his client would be withdrawing his appeal, but he had since been informed that the appeal was proceeding. He said that as he was not in a position to make submissions on the appellant’s behalf, he would make the same submissions as Mr Bowman and Mr Clarke.

In response to the submissions, Mr McGillicuddy said that O’Toole had been identified from video footage, while the appellant had also acknowledged that he had been present in the house.

Mr McGillicuddy said that the trial judge had ruled that she had no difficulty about the integrity of the body cam footage, while concerning the matter of identification, he said that a garda gave evidence before the jury about the identification process.

On the matter of joint enterprise, counsel said that the prosecution case was always that those involved had a tacit agreement to do whatever was necessary to take back the house, and the actions on the night and the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to show they were in joint enterprise.

Mr Justice Charleton said that the court would reserve judgement in the case.