A bid to halt the trial of four men accused of falsely imprisoning and assaulting Quinn Industrial Holdings (QIH) director Kevin Lunney has been rejected by judges at the Special Criminal Court on Monday.
Mr Justice Tony Hunt, presiding at the three-judge court, rejected all four grounds of a pre-trial defence application to adjourn the 12-week trial, which is due to commence on January 11th.
The judge also found the fact a Renault Kangoo van went on fire from an electrical fault while in the possession of gardaí was “immutable” and was not a sufficient basis for the case to be adjourned.
Sean Guerin SC, on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), previously told the Special Criminal Court that one of the accused men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had complained to the Garda Ombudsman that DNA was “planted” on a van that he says was deliberately destroyed in a fire so it wouldn’t be made available to the defence. However, Mr Guerin said the fire began accidentally and the CCTV had been disclosed to the defence.
Luke O’Reilly (66), with an address at Mullahoran Lower, Kilcogy, Co Cavan; Darren Redmond (25), from Caledon Road, East Wall, Dublin 3; Alan O’Brien (39), of Shelmalier Road, East Wall, Dublin 3 and the fourth accused man are all charged with false imprisonment and assault causing serious harm to Mr Lunney at Drumbrade, Ballinagh, Co Cavan on September 17th, 2019.
Mr Lunney (50) was abducted close to his home in Co Fermanagh on the evening of September 17th. The businessman’s leg was broken, he was doused in bleach and the letters QIH were carved into his chest during the two-and-a-half hour ordeal before he was dumped on a roadside in Co Cavan.
The four defendants were sent forward for trial before the Special Criminal Court last March and the non-jury court has fixed January 11th, 2021 as their trial date. It is expected to last 12 weeks.
Delivering the non-jury court’s ruling on the matter, Mr Justice Hunt, sitting with Judge Sarah Berkeley and Judge Michael Walsh, said four separate grounds had been advanced by the defence.
One of the four grounds for an adjournment submitted by defence counsel Michael O’Higgins SC for the unnamed man, and adopted by the three other co-accused, concerned the law on the retention and accessing of mobile phone data. Counsel argued that the law is in “a state of significant uncertainty” in Ireland and the trial should therefore not proceed.
Outlining the reasons for the court’s ruling on this ground, Mr Justice Hunt said the Special Criminal Court did not perceive “sufficient flux and sufficient uncertainty” to justify an adjournment of the trial and it was up to the domestic courts to come to an assessment of the legality or otherwise of the retention of phone data. “No guidance is going to come in the short term in relation to these matters,” he added.
Another reason put forward by Mr O’Higgins was that High Court challenges have been brought by the defendants against the Special Criminal Court’s jurisdiction to try the matter.
In relation to this, Mr Justice Hunt said that a significant fact was that “no stay” had emanated from the High Court and there was no legal impediment to hear the trial and therefore no basis for adjourning it on this ground. If the trial proceeded to its full duration, the judge said it would be late April or early May before a verdict would be available and “it may well be that the High Court gets to the finish line first”.
Mr O’Higgins had also argued that there was a large volume of disclosure in the case and in his submission there was no reasonable prospect that the material would be scrutinised in the available time. The lawyer said his client also wanted to go through the material himself, which was not an unreasonable request.
The court was satisfied, Mr Justice Hunt said, that the ground for an adjournment concerning the volume of disclosure did not arise. The judge said it was not clear to the court whether the lawyers did not have time to “scrutinise the material” and it was “very difficult” to assess the reality of this application.
Finally, Mr O’Higgins had submitted that there was important DNA evidence found on an abandoned Renault Kangoo van, used in the alleged abduction of Mr Lunney, which went on fire from an electrical fault while in the possession of gardaí. He noted that the Garda Ombudsman was carrying out an investigation into the fire and it did not seem unreasonable to wait for the outcome.
Mr Justice Hunt said the result of the fire was “immutable” and could not be changed and sufficient basis had not been put forward on this ground for the case to be adjourned.
“What has happened has happened and whatever the consequences, that will have will have to be worked out at the trial,” he said, adding that it would be nice if GSOC produced a report next week to remove the issue in the case one way or another. DNA, he said, was produced in court in many cases, not the place where the DNA was discovered.
Refusing the defence application, Mr Justice Hunt said that as far as these four grounds were concerned, there was no basis for adjourning the trial. The case was listed for mention on December 21st at 12.30pm.