'You are denying me my human rights': Convict dismisses legal team and walks out of the dock

Fiona Magennis

One of three men jailed for taking part in a “barbarous” vigilante attack on security personnel guarding a repossessed farmhouse in Roscommon shouted “you are denying me my human rights” and walked out of the Court of Appeal after he dismissed his legal team and was refused permission to read out a statement.

Soon after Martin O’Toole (60) left the court, lawyers for Paul Beirne (58), another of the men due to appeal the severity of his sentence before the court on Tuesday, informed the panel that their client had also indicated his wish to discharge his legal team.

Counsel for PJ Sweeney (59) said his client intended to proceed with his appeal.

Shortly before sentence appeals on behalf of all three men were due to get underway, Colman Fitzgerald SC, representing O’Toole, told the court that his client wished to discharge his legal team.

When pressed to confirm that he no longer wished to be represented by his legal team, O’Toole said: “I am a dyslexic person. I have been bullied, cajoled and framed in a sadistic way by the State. The least I think I’m entitled to is to be listened to and to have my statement read into the record.”

He subsequently agreed that he did not wish to have Mr Fitzgerald represent him and did not wish to represent himself.

O’Toole repeatedly told the court that he had a statement he wished to read into the record.

He was told this could not be done but Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy informed him the panel would take a copy of his statement. O’Toole again insisted he wanted to read the statement into the record, adding: “That’s my right”.

After he was again informed by the judge that the panel would receive his document “as a measure of consideration” but that he could not read it into the record, O’Toole said: “You are denying me my human rights. This is not a court of law”.

The court rose for a short time before returning and informing O’Toole the panel had read his statement.

Ms Justice Kennedy said as it was of “complete irrelevance” to his appeal against the severity of his sentence they were refusing to allow him to read it into the record.

O’Toole then walked out of the dock into a nearby holding area before the judge noted that by leaving court, O’Toole had clearly indicated he was withdrawing his appeal.

Seamus Clarke SC, representing Beirne, then informed the court that during the brief interlude, his client had instructed him that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr Clarke.

Beirne then uttered something incomprehensible before stating: “You’re no good to me either”. He then also left the dock as a woman in the public gallery clapped.

After the court again rose for a short time and clarification was sought, counsel said he had spoken to Beirne who had indicated that he did not wish to continue with his appeal and had made a gesture indicating that he “wouldn’t be coming out”.

Mr Bowman, representing PJ Sweeney (59), informed the court his client was proceeding with his appeal against the severity of his sentence.

O'Toole, of Stripe, Irishtown, Claremorris Co Mayo; Sweeney, of High Cairn, Ramelton, Co Donegal; and Beirne, of Croghan, Boyle, Co Roscommon, were each sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty in June 2023 of 15 charges in relation to the incident at Strokestown, including aggravated burglary, violent disorder and criminal damage to a door of the house.

They were also found guilty of false imprisonment of and assault causing harm to Ian Gordon, Mark Rissen, John Graham, and Gary McCourtney.

Rural property

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.

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 around 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.

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. Another told the trial that he was tied up, had his legs cut with a meat cleaver and was doused in petrol during the attack.

Before the appeal got underway, the court viewed a short clip of body cam footagerecorded inside the kitchen of the property showing a number of men wielding various weapons while loud shouting can also be heard.

Outlining Sweeney’s grounds of appeal against the severity of his sentence in court this afternoon, Mr Bowman argued the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately take into account the mitigating factors in relation to his client. He also contended the sentence imposed on Sweeney was “excessive and disproportionate”.

Counsel said his client had substantial mitigation in his favour while O’Toole had offered “no mitigation whatsoever” and Beirne had accepted an organisational role in the incident.

He said at the time of sentence, his client was 57-year-old man who was treated as a person of “good character” with no previous convictions and a long work history in the construction trade.

He also had a number of family dependents. Mr Bowman said there had to be scope for “some aspect of suspension” in circumstances such as this.

Counsel argued his client’s culpability was less than that of others involved. He said case law clearly showed that even in a case of joint enterprise, account must be taken of different culpability.

Mr Bowman also suggested the judge should have set a headline sentence in the case and should have structured the jail term to balance punitive, deterrent and rehabilitative elements. He said the court, in imposing sentence, did not seek any “graduation of scale”.

Patrick Gageby SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said Sweeney could be seen in the bodycam footage with a chainsaw and a pick axe handle. He also noted the appellant had travelled down to Roscommon from Donegal.

Counsel said no one who looked at the body cam footage could be under any apprehension that this was anything other than a “forceful” and “sinister” entry. He said Sweeney had brought the chainsaw with the purpose of “terrorising” those at the house.

He said while Sweeney was not the organiser, he had travelled to the event and had participated in it.

Gageby said there was no error in terms of sentence because all of those who came “intended to cause harm” and intended to commit aggravated burglary.

In response, Mr Gageby said if the court thought it was of importance that Sweeney wasn’t involved in the forcing of a security guard to eat excrement then it might act on that but, he said, this along with the beating of the dog and what was done to the security men was all part of the same attempt to “terrorise people” who were at the location lawfully doing their job.

Counsel said this was not a case where there was any evidence of a “change of heart” on the part of Sweeney and said there was no question of rehabilitation.

“Really, at the end of the day the question is, under what possible circumstances could Mr Sweeney, seeing him on the camera with the revving chainsaw, in what circumstances could that not be a very serious offence when there isn’t a plea of guilty to take into account,” said Mr Gageby.

He said the sentence passed upon Sweeney was “well within” the scope of what was available to the judge.

Ms Justice Kennedy said the court would reserve judgement and give its decision at a later date.