Court told alleged Brady conspirator was ‘cheerleader’

Garda killer Aaron Brady orchestrated a campaign of witness intimidation during his 2020 trial for the murder of Detective Garda Adrian Donohoe, while his alleged conspirator was an “enthusiastic cheerleader” for attempts to stop those he termed “rats” from giving evidence, a prosecuting barrister has told the Special Criminal Court.

Lorcan Staines SC told the three-judge, non-jury court that the alleged conspiracy to persuade a witness not to give evidence at Brady’s trial was a “criminal act of the most insidious kind”.

In his closing speech today, Mr Staines said that 30-year-old Dean Byrne from Cabra Park, Phibsborough in Dublin – who is on trial accused of conspiring with Brady to pervert the course of justice – was housed with Brady on the D-wing of Mountjoy Prison during the 2020 trial.

Counsel said Mr Byrne shared photographs of the statement of Daniel Cahill, a key witness in Brady’s trial, with relatives of Mr Cahill – which he said was part of a conspiracy to persuade the witness not to give evidence.

Mr Staines alleged that Mr Byrne was acting as an “agent” for Brady and that the conspiracy between them included the use of improper means to persuade Mr Cahill not to give evidence.

Padraig Dwyer SC, for Mr Byrne, said it was “pretty staggering” that the prosecution has been unable to produce any evidence that his client ever met with Brady in Mountjoy.

He said there was also no evidence of contacts between them on a phone that was found in Mr Byrne’s cell.

While the prosecution had pointed to the campaign of intimidation by Brady, Mr Dwyer said there was “not one scintilla of evidence to show that Dean Byrne was aware that there was such a campaign”.

Mr Dwyer said the charge against his client is novel and vague and there is no evidence of any agreement between his client and Brady or of how Mr Cahill was to be persuaded not to give evidence.

He said the court should not convict if Mr Byrne had a “benign” intention and genuinely believed Mr Cahill was going to give false evidence at Brady’s trial.

Persuasion, counsel said, is a “vague word” and he urged the court not to convict Mr Byrne of a serious crime when the prosecution cannot even say what was unlawful in the sharing of Mr Cahill’s statement.

Mr Byrne is on trial accused of conspiring with Brady in Mountjoy Prison between 8 April 2020 and 22 June 2020 to persuade prosecution witness Mr 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 Donohoe during a credit union robbery at Lordship, Bellurgan, Co Louth on 25 January 2013.

Mr Staines today told the court that Brady went on trial for the murder of Det Gda Donohoe in January 2020.

A key element of the prosecution case was the testimony of various witnesses, including Mr Cahill, who said they heard Brady admit that he had shot a garda.

Mr Staines said all the evidence proves that Brady and Mr Byrne were in contact with one another and agreed to put in place a course of conduct whereby Mr Cahill would be prevailed upon in an effort to persuade him not to give evidence.

To further that end, counsel said, Brady provided Dean Byrne with photographs of Mr Cahill’s statement so that the statement could be further shared with members of Mr Cahill’s family and other associates. Mr Staines said that the sharing of Mr Cahill’s statement was in itself unlawful.

As a result of an earlier ruling by the court, counsel said that any use of improper or unlawful means to obstruct, interfere with or change the course of justice amounts to the offence of perverting the course of justice being made out.

Mr Staines said it was also clear that Mr Byrne had no legitimate interest in ABrady’s trial and there was no evidence that he was a confidante or adviser to Mr Cahill.

Mr Staines said Mr Byrne is the “sort of inmate” who would be recruited by Brady in his campaign.

Mr Staines added that the accused’s true feelings towards Mr Cahill can be seen in one audio message in which he referred to the witness as a “rat” and a “dirtbird, filthbag, rat b*****d of a thing”.

Mr Staines concluded: “The prosecution contend and submit to the court that this was a criminal act of the most insidious kind.

“There was a campaign of witness intimidation in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Aaron Brady and it was a campaign to stop, using the accused’s own word, ‘rats’ from giving evidence.”

Mr Staines said that while Brady was the conductor of the campaign, Mr Byrne was “one of his enthusiastic cheerleaders”.

Mr Dwyer said the height of the prosecution case is that Mr Byrne was furthering a plan or intention of Brady’s, but not that he did anything legally or morally wrong.

He said there is no evidence of him sitting down with Brady to agree on a course of conduct.

Mr Dwyer said there is evidence that when sharing Mr Cahill’s statement, Mr Byrne asked that it not be shown to Mr Cahill.

Mr Dwyer said this could be interpreted as Mr Byrne not wanting to put pressure on Mr Cahill or to “spook” him.

He said the evidence of association between Brady and Mr Byrne is “scant” and there was no evidence of Brady’s activities in relation to the alleged conspiracy with Mr Byrne.

Opportunities for them to communicate would have been limited by the Covid lockdown in place in the prison in 2020.

Counsel further described as “not well founded” the prosecution claim that Mr Byrne could only have received Mr Cahill’s statements from Brady. He said those statements appear to have been in circulation for some period of time.

Mr Dwyer said the prosecution had alleged that Mr Byrne tried to set up a meeting between Brady’s dad and Mr Cahill’s dad.

Counsel said the evidence shows only that Mr Byrne was aware that such a meeting had been suggested.

Any such plan was made independently of Mr Byrne, he said, and the most the prosecution can say is that Mr Byrne was “passing on a message” or “updating interested parties”.

He said there is no independent evidence that the person who received Mr Cahill’s statements from Mr Byrne ever spoke to or contacted Mr Cahill.

Mr Justice Paul Burns, presiding, adjourned the case until 29 May when Brady is due to be sentenced for his role in perverting the course of justice during his trial.

Mr Justice Burns said the court may have its verdict ready on that date.