Tax official `was using tranquillisers at time of plea'

A clinical psychiatrist has told Ennis Circuit Court that a former Revenue Commissioners official accused of masterminding an attempted £33.8 million VAT fraud, did not have his full faculties when pleading guilty to the charge on September 28th. Mr Brendan Murphy (46), Fiel brook, Parteen, Co Clare, is charged that he conspired with the late Brendan O'Doherty, Enfield, Co Meath, and others not before the court to defraud the Revenue Commissioners of £33,823,716 between January 1st and June 18th, 1997.

Mr Murphy made an application yesterday through Mr Seamus Sorahan SC to change his plea of guilty which he made on September 28th to one of not guilty. The application was opposed by Mr Denis Vaughan Buckley SC, on behalf of the DPP, on the basis that Mr Murphy had been previously represented by an eminent senior counsel and that his plea of guilty was unequivocal.

Judge Kevin Haugh adjourned the hearing to Limerick Circuit Court today to give his decision on the application.

The court heard that what was described as a definitive decision on a change of plea is expected to be given in another case by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Dublin next month. The court was told that Mr Murphy, a former principal tax officer with the Revenue Commissioners, had a dependence on tranquillising tablets, which he first took in 1986-87.

Mr Sorahan submitted that Mr Murphy had a frightening dependence on tranquillisers and did not appreciate what he was doing or the plea of guilty. Mr Murphy said he was totally confused and bewildered, going along with something he did not understand when he pleaded guilty.

The clinical director of psychiatry with the Eastern Health Board, Dr Brian McCaffrey, who interviewed Mr Murphy in Limerick prison on Good Friday, said he formed the opinion that the tablets made him less aware of his environment and had a tranquillising effect. "I am inclined to think that the accused has been exacerbated by the amount of tablets he had been taking rather than being helped by them and this had impaired his ability to relate with his previous legal advisers.

"To summarise, I formed the opinion that as a direct result of the drug and its toxicity that his ability to instruct counsel and make a rational decision on the weekend of September 25th to September 27th, 1998, when he signed a document that he was pleading guilty, was so impaired that he would not have been in a position to make a will and did not have his full faculties."

He said Mr Murphy's memory was definitely impaired, and in his opinion he was not fully able to instruct his solicitor at that time. He believed he was now in a position to make a plea after being weaned off the tablets in prison.

Mr Murphy told the court he was overcome by the enormity of the case and he agreed with Mr Sorahan that a document in which he signed a plea of guilty with his previous legal team belied his true feelings. He also believed that three days before the hearing on September 28th, his defence was not ready. He alleged that he had given nobody any instructions other than for him to plead not guilty to the charge.

At one time he was taking six to 15 tablets a day. He told his previous solicitor after the September 28th hearing in no uncertain terms that it was never his intention to plead guilty to the charge.

Cross-examined by Mr Buckley, Mr Murphy said he could not recall saying to another psychiatrist that his previous senior counsel had allegedly said that if he pleaded guilty he would get five years and that if he pleaded not guilty he would get 15 years.

Mr Sorahan submitted that a plea of guilty could be changed subject to certain reservations as there was a great body of case law.

Mr Buckley submitted that a change of plea was a serious matter and was only rarely exercised. To try to set this aside, there would have to be strong evidence. The court must be satisfied that Mr Murphy had lost the power of making a voluntary choice.