Lawyers for the State have urged the Court of Appeal to uphold the convictions of three men jailed for the kidnap and torture of Quinn Industrial Holdings director Kevin Lunney.
Sean Guerin SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), said “the fundamental error” in submissions made by lawyers for the convicted men that they failed to consider all of the evidence in its totality.
Counsel for Alan Harte (43), Alan O’Brien (43) and Darren Redmond (30) said, however, the DPP’s contention that any potential error found by the court could be “self-correct[ed]” was “not logical” and “not correct”.
Following the trial at the Special Criminal Court in December 2022, Harte, of Island Quay Apartments; O’Brien, of Shelmalier Road; and Redmond, from Caledon Road, all in East Wall, Dublin 3, were convicted of false imprisonment and intentionally causing harm to Mr Lunney at a yard at Drumbrade, Ballinagh, Co Cavan, on September 17th, 2019.
Case of three siblings abandoned as babies in London suburb confounds police
Irish government gave Facebook a ‘special phone’ in case of problems, former executive claims
Taoiseach to meet Trump in White House as US verges on possible trade war with EU
US says ‘ball in Russia’s court’ after Ukraine agrees to 30-day ceasefire
Career criminal Harte inflicted most of Mr Lunney’s serious injuries, including knife wounds to his face and torso. Harte was sentenced to 30 years in prison, while O’Brien received a 25-year sentence and Redmond was sentenced to 18 years with the final three suspended.
The appeal hearing began last December and was adjourned until Tuesday, when Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, Ms Justice Tara Burns and Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy reserved their decision.
Barristers for the three men have argued that key DNA evidence from a van that was used as a “team bus” by the offenders and was destroyed by a fire while in Garda custody should not have been admissible at their trial.
The men have also argued that the judges in the Special Criminal Court erred in refusing to adjourn the trial so that the law could be clarified about the admissibility of phone records.
Mr Guerin said the “fundamental error” made in this appeal was that counsel for the men were focusing on individual pieces of evidence rather than considering all of the evidence in its totality.
