Supreme Court to hear appeal from disgraced ex-solicitor Michael Lynn over time served in Brazil

Ann O'Loughlin

The Supreme Court will hear an appeal by disgraced ex-solicitor Michael Lynn, convicted of stealing €18 million from Irish banks, over whether the struck-off former lawyer is entitled to have his time in prison here further reduced to take account of the four-and-a-half years he spent in a notorious Brazilian prison.

While Lynn was given credit for time spent in custody abroad, the Supreme Court will hear arguments as to how the courts should account for remission that would be applied if a person were serving a sentence in Ireland.

Prisoners who are of good behaviour are entitled to a 25 per cent discount on their sentence but it is unclear how that should be applied when a person has served part of their sentence abroad.

Following a trial before the Circuit Criminal Court, Lynn was convicted by a jury on ten counts in February 2024 of theft contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and sentenced to five-and-a-half years' imprisonment.

The ex-solicitor had pleaded not guilty to 21 theft charges - the jury was unable to agree on the remaining 11 charges.

The guilty verdicts related to the theft of €18,144,385 from six lenders during the Celtic Tiger boom.

At the time of the thefts, Lynn (57), of Millbrook Court, Redcross, Co Wicklow, was a high-profile multi-millionaire solicitor and property developer. However, the trial heard that the Lynns were now living off social welfare.

Lynn fled Ireland in 2007 while under investigation by the gardaí and the Law Society over allegedly owing €80 million to various institutions.

In August 2013, the State sought Lynn’s extradition from Brazil and entered into an ad hoc extradition agreement as no formal extradition agreement between the two countries is in place.

Lynn contested his extradition all the way to the Supreme Court of Brazil, but was unsuccessful and was extradited in March 2018.

Lynn spent 1,645 days in the Cotel Prison in Recife, during which he fought his extradition, where he claimed to have witnessed violent rebellions and killings.

One killing that he claimed to have witnessed involved the decapitation of a young man. He told his trial that his incarceration in Brazil caused him PTSD and flashbacks.

By the time of his sentencing here, Lynn had spent an additional 105 days on remand in prison pending his trial.

The Circuit Court judge identified a headline sentence for Lynn's “global misbehaviour” at 16 years’ imprisonment.

Judge Martin Nolan then reduced the headline to 13 years due to mitigating factors, including that Lynn had no previous convictions. He then reduced that again by seven-and-a-half years to reflect the time in custody here and in Brazil.

While Lynn had spent a period of four-and-a-half years in prison in Brazil, the judge said it was appropriate to “aggregate up” that period to seven-and-a-half years to reflect the inhuman conditions of Cotel Prison.

Lynn challenged the sentence in the Court of Appeal (CoA) on grounds of "severity", arguing that the Circuit Court judge failed to allow appropriate credit for the time served in Brazil and that it failed to allow him to rely on the time served in Brazil for the purposes of remission to cut his sentence here.

The CoA rejected Lynn's grounds of appeal on severity and increased his jail time by three months, resulting in a sentence of five years and nine months' imprisonment.

Lynn now questions what the criteria are for calculating credit for time served abroad - in inhumane conditions or not - while awaiting extradition.

Lynn is also arguing if there is a constitutional obligation in the sentencing process for possible entitlement to remission being extended to cover the total time served abroad and at home, or if remission is limited to time served here.

The Supreme Court has determined that Lynn's case raises questions of public importance.

The court determined that there did not appear to be an entitlement or a formula for assessment set down in any statute for time spent in jail abroad when awaiting extradition outside of the European Arrest Warrant Act.

The court determined Lynn could proceed with his challenge against the claimed severity of the sentence.

The determination, published this week, also warned Lynn that if the court finds that the CoA erred in sentencing, they could increase as well as decrease his sentence.