Murderer’s lawyers say drunk state ‘undermined intent to kill’

JURORS were not properly directed on how a man’s level of drunkenness impacted on his alleged intent to kill a father-offour, the Court of Appeal heard yesterday.

Lawyers for Mark Ward claimed the way that his intoxication was dealt with at trial rendered his conviction for murdering Marcell Seeley unsafe.

Mr Seeley’s body was discovered in the living room of his Dingwell Park flat in Lurgan, Co Armagh in October 2015.

The 34-year-old victim, who was known as Junior, died from blunt force trauma to the head.

He had also suffered multiple injuries including fractures to his ribs and a bone just above his voice box.

Ward (26), from Drumellan Gardens in Craigavon, denied murdering Mr Seeley — a man he was said to have known for around a decade.

But in October 2017 he was sentenced to a minimum of 16 years behind bars after a jury found him guilty.

Footprints found at the scene of the killing had been key to his conviction.

A distinctive sole pattern was matched to shoes worn by Ward in CCTV footage of him walking towards the victim’s home on the night.

Ward was not in court, but his lawyers examined the trial judge’s direction to the jury.

Ward’s level of intoxication and how it impacted on the question of intent to commit murder were central to the appeal.

Charles McCreanor QC contended that evidence showed his client had consumed two half-bottles of vodka, around 10 beers and taken cocaine over a 10-hour period on the night in question.

Mr McCreanor argued that a specific legal direction should have been given about the defendant’s drunkenness.

Instead, he argued, the charge to the jury on the issue “favoured the prosecution”.

David McDowell QC, for the Crown, rejected any need for such a direction because the focus had been properly on establishing who committed the killing.

He told the court evidence showed Mr Seeley was kicked and stamped on, and that Ward, on his own account, knew what he had done.

“The severity of the attack was such that if someone is rendered so stupid by drink that he didn’t know what he was doing, (then) this sort of attack was beyond him,” counsel added.

Judgment was reserved following closing submissions in the appeal.