Violent criminal claims "benign" motive in dissuading a witness in Louth garda murder trial

A violent criminal has claimed he had a "benign" motive when he tried to persuade a witness not to give evidence in the trial of a garda murderer and has argued he should not have been found guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

At the three-judge Court of Appeal today (THU), lawyers for Dean Byrne said their client had an honest belief that the witness, Daniel Cahill, was going to give false evidence in the trial of Aaron Brady.

However, Lorcan Staines SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that rather than being an "agent of justice", Byrne's real view was that the witness had offended the criminal code by giving evidence.

He said Byrne showed his true attitude in one exchange in which he was recorded calling Mr Cahill a "f**king rat c**t, filthbag rat bastard of a thing".

READ NEXT: Man mugged a woman who was using a walking frame in Louth

The Court of Appeal has also been asked to rule on whether any attempt to persuade a witness not to give evidence constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Mr Staines argued that even where a doctor advises a patient not to give evidence for health reasons, the doctor would be guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

A person who tells a family member or loved one not to give evidence out of concern for their wellbeing would also be guilty of the offence, Mr Staines argued.

However, Mr Staines added that in such cases prosecutors would be expected to use their discretion in deciding whether to prosecute the doctor or family member.

Padraig Dwyer SC, acting for Byrne, said the "absolutist" approach should not be adopted by the Irish courts. He said it would be "unrealistic" for the court to rule that attempts at persuasion are always unlawful, regardless of the circumstances.

In June last year, Byrne (31) from Cabra Park, Phibsborough, Dublin was convicted by the three-judge, non-jury Special Criminal Court of conspiring with Aaron Brady in Mountjoy Prison between April 8, 2020 and June 22, 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.

The court imposed a two-year sentence on Byrne.

Byrne was already serving an 18--year sentence with four suspended for a burglary in 2013 in which he and six others broke into a family home and terrorised the parents and their three daughters, aged eight, six and two.

Mr Dwyer today (THU) told the appeal court that legal authorities in the United Kingdom have stated that no offence is committed where a person uses lawful means to persuade a witness not to give false evidence. During legal argument in Byrne's trial, he said the Special Criminal Court had accepted that as "good law".

However, the court found that Byrne had used unlawful means when, as part of his bid to dissuade Mr Cahill from giving evidence, he sent a copy of part of Mr Cahill's statement to a third party in the hope that person would speak to the witness.

The court found that dissemination of statements from the book of evidence is a contempt of court and therefore Byrne had used an unlawful means to dissuade Mr Cahill. Mr Dwyer submitted that books of evidence are routinely passed around among prisoners and family members yet nobody has been prosecuted arising from that.

He said the prosecution had been unable to point to any law that prohibited the circulation of a statement. Counsel argued that the judge should not have found that disseminating the statement was unlawful and that Byrne should have been acquitted.

Mr Staines said there had been a "wide-ranging campaign of intimidation" by Brady's friends, family and associates to prevent witnesses giving evidence at his trial. In the present case, he said there is ample evidence that Byrne had a "malign motive" and that he used unlawful means.

Counsel referred to the language used by Byrne in describing Mr Cahill and the "contempt" he expressed for him. Mr Staines said the court also had to consider that Byrne was acting on behalf of Brady, a man charged with a capital murder in which an armed gang wearing balaclavas shot a garda in the face during a credit union robbery before fleeing across the border into Northern Ireland.

Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, with Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Michael MacGrath, reserved judgment.

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.

Following Byrne's trial, the Special Criminal Court found that Brady and Byrne were in regular communication during Brady's trial in 2020. Both were being housed on different landings in the D-wing of Mountjoy prison.

They had opportunities to speak during recreation breaks in the yard and gym and also through Brady's volunteer work delivering leaflets to cells for the Red Cross.

The court was further satisfied that both men had the use of mobile phones while in their cells which they used to communicate with one another.

Mr Justice Paul Burns said the evidence showed that they agreed on a course of conduct to prevail on others to dissuade Mr Cahill from giving evidence. He said it was clear that Brady was feeding information about Mr Cahill's evidence to Byrne.

Byrne, he said, had no legitimate involvement in the trial. Rather, he had recruited others to put social pressure on Mr Cahill and unlawfully disseminated copies of parts of the witnesses' statement.