The Special Criminal Court has rejected arguments that it should dismiss the charge against a man accused of conspiring to pervert the course of justice during the trial of Aaron Brady.
The three-judge, non-jury court found that at its highest, the prosecution case against Dean Byrne could amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he conspired with Brady to persuade prosecution witness Daniel Cahill not to give evidence.
Daniel Cahill would eventually tell Aaron Brady’s trial that Brady confessed to him on at least three occasions that he had shot a garda.
The court will hear closing arguments in Mr Byrne’s trial on Wednesday before considering its verdict.
‘I’m hoping at least one girl who is on the fence about reporting her violent boyfriend ... will read about my case’
What Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Greens promised in 2020 - and how much they delivered
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Restaurateur Gráinne O’Keefe: I cut out sugar from my diet and here’s how it went
Dean Byrne (30) from Cabra Park, Phibsborough, Dublin is on trial accused of conspiring with Aaron Brady in Mountjoy Prison between April 8th, 2020 and June 22nd, 2020 to persuade prosecution witness Daniel Cahill not to give evidence at Brady’s murder trial, a course of conduct which had a tendency to and which was intended to pervert the course of justice.
In August 2020, Brady (33) formerly of New Road, Crossmaglen, Co Armagh was convicted by a jury of the murder of Det Gda Adrian Donohoe during a credit union robbery at Lordship, Bellurgan, Co Louth on January 25, 2013.
In submissions to the court last week Padraig Dwyer SC, for Mr Byrne, argued that “persuading” a witness not to give evidence is not unlawful. Mr Dwyer also said that Mr Byrne had a “benign motive” because he genuinely believed Daniel Cahill was going to give false evidence.
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Burns said persuasion, even where the person believes a witness is going to give false evidence, can be an offence. He also found that there does not have to be evidence that the accused used force, the threat of force or corrupt inducements. “The course of justice may be perverted if it is obstructed, interfered with, defeated or changed,” he said.
Mr Justice Burns did not accept a prosecution argument that all attempts to persuade a witness not to give evidence would amount to criminal conduct. He said there may be an “extremely limited set of circumstances” where a friend, relative or health advisor might lawfully try to persuade someone not to give evidence.
Mr Justice Burns said before coming to a verdict, the court will have to consider all the prosecution evidence. At its highest, he said the evidence could be sufficient to prove that Mr Byrne was in communication with Aaron Brady while both men were being housed in the D-wing of Mountjoy prison.
He said the court will have to consider evidence that Mr Byrne used a smartphone in the prison to disseminate Daniel Cahill’s garda statement to others outside the prison. He said there is also evidence that Mr Byrne recruited members of Mr Cahill’s family to call upon him not to give evidence and that Mr Byrne “was not wholly motivated by a desire to prevent false testimony”.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis