Judges vow "never again" as they reject seven-year appeal Senior judges vowed "never again" yesterday as they finally dismissed a man's appeal, seven years after he was convicted of a stabbing murder at a party. More than 30 preliminary hearings took place before the full appeal by Sean Toal, 27, was heard at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh. His challenge to the jury's guilty verdict at his trial in 2005 was rejected, and the judges said that it should never again take so long for an appeal to be determined. "The indulgence afforded by the court to this appellant can only be described as extreme," said Lord Carloway, who was recently appointed to the post of Lord Justice Clerk, Scotland's second most senior judge. Over 30 procedural hearings were fixed over a period of some six years before the final hearing took place... this degree of latitude cannot, in the interests of justice, be allowed to recur. The family of Toal's victim, Paul McGilveray, is known to be angry at the number of times the case has been in court, and Lord Carloway added: "Any properly functioning system of appeals from jury verdicts must have, as a central feature, means by which such appeals can be concluded within a reasonable time. This is in the interests of all, whether appellants, victims - including relatives of deceased persons - or the public. Toal, of Condorrat, North Lanarkshire, was convicted of murdering Mr McGilveray, 20, of Hamilton, in August 2004 by punching and kicking him, and striking him with a knife. He was given a life sentence and ordered to serve at least 15 years before he could apply for parole. A charge against a co-accused was found not proven, and the prosecution withdrew the indictment against two other men. The trial heard there had been a party at the home of Mr McGilveray's girlfriend, and a fight started in the garden. Mr McGilveray died from a stab wound to the chest, and while Toal admitted inflicting injuries on him, he blamed one of the other men for the fatal wound. In the appeal, Toal's lawyers claimed the verdict against him was perverse because, on the state of the evidence, no reasonable jury could have convicted him. Lord Gill, the Lord Justice-General, sitting with Lords Carloway and Kingarth, said there was sufficient evidence to entitle the jury to convict. "There were criticisms to be made of it and contradictions and inconsistencies to be brought out," said Lord Gill. All of these were highlighted in the presentation of the defence case. But what weight was to be given to the defence points, and whether all or any of them introduced a reasonable doubt, were matters for the jury to decide. In relation to the "protracted history" and "procedural confusion" of the appeal, Lord Carloway said the 30-plus hearings had been caused by the pursuit by Toal of material for potential grounds of appeal different to those he had presented in his original note of appeal. "And, crucially, the court repeatedly allowing the appellant to do so," said Lord Carloway.