Secret jail interview of Estonian held over conspiracy to murder
A MAN charged with conspiracy to murder a friend of the Hutch family has given a wide-ranging interview to a newspaper in his native Estonia, the Irish Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Imre Arakas, 58, is due to face a non-jury trial in the Special Criminal Court later this year.
According to prison sources it is a serious breach of prison rules for prisoners on remand to conduct press interviews.
But equally it is very hard to stop when the accused does the interview through a third party.
When contacted, a spokesman for the Prison Service said that it would not comment on individual prisoners.
The interview with Mr Arakas was published in Estonian newspaper Eesti Ekspress on February 7, and featured a full and frank discussion about the charges he faces. It was accompanied by a drawing of him in an imagining of his Mountjoy prison cell.
The interview was conducted by Estonian journalist Tarmo Vahter, who posted his questions to Mr Arakas.
The accused answered the questions through his wife over the course of a number of telephone calls. The interview ran alongside the drawing of Mr Arakas, created by a computer artist at the newspaper.
Sources confirmed the incident was a serious breach of prison protocol – but said there is little the Prison Service can do.
‘If somebody has conducted an interview without permission, they would breach prison rules. That’s the rule for all prisoners, whether they are on remand or serving sentences.
‘In this case, it is impossible to prove he breached any rules because of how the interview was conducted. The Prison Service couldn’t wander down that path.
‘Once you have third-party involvement, as he did, the Prison Service would find itself before the courts in a very short space of time. If the Prison Service can’t prove it, it can’t really do anything.’
Mr Arakas was served with the book of evidence in his case in September.
At the time, the court heard gardaí from the Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau raided a premises in west Dublin on April 4, 2017, as part of an investigation into the Hutch-Kinahan feud.
Mr Arakas, with an address at Sopruse, Tallinn, Estonia, was charged on April 6 and was then remanded in custody.
He is accused of conspiring with others, not before the courts, to murder James Gately in Northern Ireland between April 3 and April 4. The offence is under Section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
Dressed in a green jacket, blue jeans and runners, he faced his 14th hearing in September when he last appeared before Judge Victor Blake at Cloverhill District Court.
Judge Blake was told the director of public prosecutions had directed trial on indictment. The DPP had also been granted a certificate under Section 42.2 of the Offences Against the State Act to direct that Mr Arakas be sent forward for trial at a sitting of the non-jury Special Criminal Court.
A State solicitor said that it was the DPP’s view that, in this case, ‘the ordinary courts are not effective for the administration of justice’. A book of evidence was served on the accused in court by Detective Garda Alan Monaghan.
Judge Blake warned Mr Arakas that if he intended to use an alibi in his defence, he must inform the prosecution within 14 days.
Mr Arakas quietly replied: ‘Yes,’ when asked if he understood.
The district court had heard earlier that he was unemployed and unable to pay for a lawyer.
Defence solicitor Tony Collier applied for legal aid and told the court there had been no change is his client’s circumstances. He asked for it to include representation of junior and senior counsel in the trial. Judge Blake acceded to Mr Collier’s request. He also made an order for disclosure of video evidence to the defence.
Mr Arakas, who has not yet indicated how he will plead, was sent forward for trial in custody and has yet to be assigned a date for his appearance in the Special Criminal Court.
At his first hearing, on April 6, a court was told ‘he made no reply to the charge’ and, due to the nature of the charge, a bail application could only be made in the High Court.
‘Impossible to prove he broke prison rules’ ‘Answered questions through calls with wife’