Criminal who conspired with garda murderer Aaron Brady loses appeal

Eoin Reynolds

A criminal who claimed he had a "benign" motive when he tried to persuade a witness not to give evidence in the trial of garda murderer Aaron Brady has lost an appeal against his conviction for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

Dean Byrne (32) now faces the possibility that he will spend more time in prison as the Director of Public Prosecutions intends to argue before the Court of Appeal that the two-year sentence imposed by the Special Criminal Court was unduly lenient.

Byrne, who has spent most of his adult life in prison, is no longer in custody but was present for today's ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Brian O'Moore.

In dismissing Byrne's appeal, Mr Justice O'Moore said that the defendant had tried to dissuade witness Daniel Cahill from giving evidence against Brady by contacting a member of Mr Cahill's family.

Mr Cahill's evidence in the trial was that Aaron Brady confessed to him on three occasions that he had murdered a garda.

Mr Justice O'Moore noted that Byrne's lawyers had argued that no offence is committed where a person uses lawful means to persuade a witness not to give false evidence.

However, Mr Justice O'Moore noted the "lack of analysis" by Byrne as to whether Mr Cahill's statement was incorrect.

He also found that the Special Criminal Court was correct in finding that Byrne had used unlawful means in attempting to dissuade Mr Cahill by sending Mr Cahill's garda statement to a third party.

This "unauthorised use of the witness statement" was unlawful, Mr Justice O'Moore said, and therefore Byrne is guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

Mr Justice O'Moore said there is a broader question as to whether any attempt to dissuade a witness from giving evidence, no matter what the circumstance, constitutes an offence.

The judge cited the example of a doctor who attempts to dissuade a patient from giving evidence on health grounds or a mother who dissuades her child from giving false testimony.

Mr Justice O'Moore said it may be "undesirable" to criminalise such behaviour but added that this question needs to be properly debated in an appropriate case.

After the court dismissed Byrne's appeal, Lorcan Staines SC said the Director of Public Prosecutions intends to appeal the leniency of the sentences imposed on Byrne and Brady for the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice offences. A date will be set for those hearings later this month.

In June last year, Byrne, 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 8th 2020 and June 22nd 2020 to persuade 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.

Byrne was already serving a sentence of 18 years 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, then aged eight, six and two.

In August 2020, Brady (34) 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 25th 2013. He is serving a life sentence with a minimum time served of 40 years for that offence.

He received a further three-year sentence for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

In its judgment, 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.

At the Court of Appeal last February, Byrne's lawyers said their client had an "honest belief" that Mr Cahill was going to give false evidence in Brady's trial.

However, Mr Staines said that rather than being an "agent of justice", Byrne's real view was that Mr Cahill 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".

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 Byrne's case, he said there is ample evidence that he had a "malign motive" and that he used unlawful means.