‘Psychic’ who conned man out of €10k fails to overturn conviction
Medium told her victim to hand over money or the ‘devil would take his soul’
A ‘PSYCHIC medium’ has failed to overturn her conviction for conning a man into giving her €10,000 by telling him his deceased father told her that the victim should hand over the money, or ‘the devil would take his soul’.
Debbie Paget, 56, of Knowth Court, Ballymun, Dublin, was convicted by a Dublin Circuit Criminal Court jury last May.
She had pleaded not guilty to dishonestly inducing by deception James Byrne to give her €10,000.
She was also charged with dishonestly inducing by deception Maria Byrne, Mr Byrne’s sister, to give her €200.
After deliberating for a little over four hours, the jury found Paget guilty, by a majority, of the first count and returned a not-guilty verdict on the second. She was jailed for a year by Judge Pauline Codd on July 10 last.
In his evidence during the trial, Mr Byrne told Oisín Clarke, prosecuting, that he and his sister Maria and their mother lived together in Cabra, Dublin.
He said Paget was a home carer for a neighbour and they all got to know her that way.
He said that on one occasion,
‘If you don’t, it will be a sin’
Paget invited him to ‘a reading’, and he thought this was a fortune telling and he would find out about his future. He said that during the session, Paget started talking about his father and then told him: ‘Your father said you are to give me €10,000.’
He said he felt pressured and gave his word to pay the money.
He said Paget asked him: ‘When are you getting the money?’ and said: ‘If you don’t, it will be a sin and the devil will get you.’
He said he later withdrew €10,000 cash from his bank account and gave it to her in an envelope.
Asked why he gave her the money, Mr Byrne told the jury: ‘I believed my father told her to tell me to give her the money, that’s what I believed.’
When questioned, Paget told gardaí that she was publicly known as a ‘psychic medium’ which meant she could ‘see beyond the veil’ and communicate with the dead. She said she had offered this service to people for 40 years and had ‘never charged a penny’ to anyone for it.
She denied she ever did ‘a reading’ for the complainants and denied that she got any money from either of them.
At the Court of Appeal yesterday, Karl Monahan, counsel for Paget, argued that the trial judge had erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of the prosecution case, on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to ground a conviction and that, in the circumstances, it would be unfair to allow the case to be considered by the jury.
He also highlighted a conversation between Maria Byrne and her brother James, which, he said, showed Ms Byrne had lied.
Counsel said Paget had been a carer for Maria Byrne, and at one point told Ms Byrne she didn’t really require a carer any more.
In submissions, Mr Monahan noted that at trial, Mr Byrne was asked about the subsequent conversation he had with his sister and confirmed that Ms Byrne said: ‘Who does she think she effin is, watch what I’m going to do on her… she’s not getting my carers taken off me.’ Judge John Edwards said the implication was that this conversation was ‘motivation’ for ‘fabricating’ an offence against the appellant, but added that it was a matter for the jury ‘what they make of that’.
‘It doesn’t render the evidence infirm… it raises the issue as to whether they can regard the evidence from the prosecution witness as credible and reliable in the light of this,’ he said. He said it had not been demonstrated that there was a fabrication of evidence for ‘vindictive reasons’.
He said it was a situation where someone has made a ‘veiled threat’ that they would do something in response to a perceived slight.
‘But it’s for the jury to decide whether in fact it’s so significant that they can consider the evidence given by the prosecution witness as being not credible and not reliable. That’s the jury’s function,’ the judge said.
At the appeal court, Judge Patrick McCarthy pointed out that Paget had been acquitted on the charge related to Ms Byrne.
Mr Monahan also highlighted a conversation Ms Byrne had with a mutual friend of hers and Paget’s. He said Ms Byrne told the woman that no money had been stolen or taken from herself and James.
He said this showed an assertion by Ms Byrne indicating that nothing was taken. He said it showed she had ‘animus’ against Paget because ‘Ms Paget was going to make an effort to perhaps take away her carer’s allowance’.
In conclusion, Mr Monahan said Paget’s conviction on the charge related to James Byrne ‘jars’ with the finding of not guilty on the other charge related to his sister given that they were ‘so closely bound up’.
Oisín Clarke, for the DPP, said the fact the jury found Paget not guilty, in respect of the Maria Byrne charge, in effect weakened Mr Monahan’s argument because it showed that the jury were ‘paying attention’, did as they were told and separated the two cases.
‘They decided the prosecution case was insufficient in terms of Ms Byrne but was sufficient in terms of Mr Byrne,’ he said.
After hearing submissions in the case, the three judges of the appeal court rose for a time before returning to deliver their verdict yesterday afternoon.
Dismissing the appeal, Judge McCarthy said that on the face of the matter, there was ‘ample evidence’ on which the jury could convict the appellant.
He said any ‘inconsistencies or infirmaries’ were ‘plainly mapped out’ for the jury.
He referred to the fact that ‘certain challenges’ to Maria Byrne’s account were advanced and said it was ‘not surprising’ that Ms Bryne’s allegations giving rise to the indictment were rejected by the jury and that that count was the subject of an acquittal.
Judge McCarthy said the court found the trial judge had not erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of the prosecution case and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
Jury ‘were paying attention’