Pair cleared in Nama trial say prosecution service has questions to answer

Jamie Bryson and Daithi McKay have said there are questions for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) after they were cleared of charges relating to misconduct in public office.

Loyalist activist Mr Bryson said the trial had been a “stressful and horrible experience”, while a lawyer for former Sinn Fein MLA Mr McKay said his client had been in a “legal pressure cooker” for a decade.

The PPS has said that available evidence had indicated that it was in the public interest to prosecute.

Mr Bryson and co-accused Thomas O’Hara were found not guilty at Belfast Crown Court of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, while Mr McKay was found not guilty of misconduct in public office.

The charges had related to a Stormont committee hearing that examined the sale of the National Asset Management Agency’s (Nama) Northern Ireland assets in 2015.

Speaking outside the court, Mr Bryson said there had to be questions posed of the PPS decision to prosecute.

Mr Bryson said: “This was an outrageous prosecution from the start.”

He was asked about comments by trial judge Gordon Kerr KC that he had lied during his evidence.

Mr Bryson said: “Absolutely not, I told the truth about all of my evidence.

“I absolutely didn’t; the fact is this, no crime, I am innocent, that is the end of the matter.”

He said he did not regret any of his actions from 2015.

Mr Bryson added: “There is no criminal offence here and there never was a criminal offence.”

Mr McKay said he was delighted but not surprised by the verdict.

He said: “There never was a case in this instance.

“To drag us through the gutters for 10 years and to top that off with a seven-week trial raises massive questions for the Public Prosecution Service.

“The question the public will have is how much did all this cost?

“I think they need to answer why people are being prosecuted for striving to have the truth.”

Mr McKay’s lawyer Michael Madden said his client had been vindicated by the judgment.

He said: “He has always denied any wrongdoing and is vindicated by today’s ruling that acquits him of all charges.

“Daithi McKay has already paid a heavy price for the decision of the PPS to prosecute this case. He was placed in a legal pressure cooker for 10 years and has had to endure a seven-week trial.”

The lawyer said the judgment showed Mr McKay had “acted in the public interest at all times”.

He added: “This prosecution was ill-conceived, without merit, and without precedent. The judge was invited by the prosecution to act as policeman of the Assembly, and to interfere with the cut and thrust of everyday politics.

“If this prosecution had succeeded, it would have had a chilling effect on any witness or whistleblower thinking of approaching a parliamentary committee wanting to expose political corruption.

“The effects would have reverberated beyond Stormont, towards Westminster and other devolved institutions.”

A PPS spokesperson said: “The PPS took the decision to prosecute after a team of experienced lawyers, including independent senior counsel, carefully examined all the evidence in the investigation file.

“We determined that the test for prosecution was met in respect of the three reported individuals.

“This means that the available evidence provided a reasonable prospect of conviction in court, and that it was in the public interest to prosecute.”

The spokesperson added: “The PPS considered that a judge could reasonably conclude that the alleged misconduct caused grave damage to public confidence in the operation of Northern Ireland’s democratic institutions and, in these circumstances, warranted the intervention of the criminal law.

“There are mechanisms within the criminal justice system whereby cases that could not result in a conviction can be stopped.

“This case was challenged on multiple occasions by the defence and each time judges independent of the PPS determined it should proceed.

“These were a challenge in the Magistrates’ Court by way of a contested committal hearing; a challenge in the High Court by way of judicial review; and challenges before two separate Crown Court Judges, one before the case started and another at the end of the prosecution case.

“On each occasion the nature of the prosecution case and the supporting evidence was presented to the court, which determined that the case should proceed.

“These rulings by the independent judiciary support the contention that the case was properly brought.

“As is our duty, we kept the evidence in this case under continuing review throughout.

“At all times we remained satisfied that the available evidence provided a reasonable prospect of conviction.”