Court hears video evidence from key witness was stopped by unseen man
Lawyers for Aaron Brady tell appeal court the integrity of his trial was ‘breached’
THE integrity of Aaron Brady’s trial was ‘well and truly breached’ when a key witness was interrupted during video-link evidence by an unseen man, who told her to ‘stop it right now’ before the link was cut, a court heard yesterday.
Father-of-one Brady, who was jailed in 2020 for a minimum of 40 years for the murder of the Detective Garda Adrian Donohoe, is trying to overturn his conviction in a six-day hearing before the Court of Appeal.
His counsel, Fiona Murphy, said the trial court erred in refusing an application by the defence to discharge the jury after witness Molly Staunton, who was giving evidence from New York, was seen arguing with an unknown male in circumstances where he appeared to be directing her testimony.
Ms Murphy added that the lack of regulation and manner in which Ms Staunton gave her evidence has no place in a country which holds itself to the highest standard in criminal trials.
She said that to say what happened in this instance fell short of the ‘gold standard’ was an understatement, that the trial was ‘fundamentally flawed’ and that any deficiencies in regulation had to fall at the feet of the State.
‘The most feared man in Ireland’
Ms Murphy said the defence position at trial was that it did not matter what direction was given to the jury, and that this infirmity could not be cured. She added: ‘For the prosecution to have been successful on the capital murder charge and to put the gun in the hand of Aaron Brady, the two US witnesses were essential.’
Ms Staunton was initially expected to travel from New York to Dublin to give evidence but that plan was scrapped when Covid swept through New York.
The extent of the lockdown there was such that plans to have her give evidence via video link from a government building also had to be scrapped.
In the end she gave her evidence despite complaints by Brady’s defence that the scenario took away from the proper gravitas of a criminal trial.
Ms Staunton told the trial that Brady said he had to ‘carry around the guilt of having murdered a cop in Ireland’. She said in her direct evidence that Brady also claimed during a drunken ‘rant’ to be ‘the most feared man in Ireland’.
However, under cross-examination, Ms Murphy had put it to Ms Staunton that the accused was concerned and upset that gardaí were looking for him in relation to the shooting but that he never made any admission to having carried out the shooting. The witness replied: ‘That’s correct.’
When Ms Staunton gave her evidence she was interrupted twice by a man who told her: ‘Put a stop to it, no more testimony’ and: ‘Tell them what you are supposed to tell them.’
In one incident Ms Staunton was interrupted at a critical point in her evidence and could be heard arguing with the man before her laptop suddenly shut down.
Brady’s lawyers argued that the jury would see the interruption as prejudicial against their client and even though there was nothing to suggest the man was acting on Brady’s behalf, they said he could no longer get a fair trial.
The judge ruled the issue could be dealt with by a warning from the judge that it may be dangerous to rely on her evidence.
Brady’s counsel yesterday said no one knew where Ms Staunton was when she was giving her evidence, that there was very little concern for the regulation of the evidence itself and that a ‘let’s get on with this’ view was adopted by the prosecution and the court.
She said: ‘The idea that someone could be upstairs and have someone shouting at them and the court wouldn’t demand to know what was going on. On every occasion this is brushed aside, it goes to the very heart and integrity of the evidence and the trial.’
She also said it was the State’s position that nothing could be done for Ms Staunton as she was giving her testimony in exceptional times yet no safeguards were put in place for her.
‘The height of what is done is a letter is sent to Ms Staunton as to the regulation of the evidence,’ she said. Ms Murphy added that the court had an opportunity to stop Ms Staunton giving her evidence and to return the next day when somebody could have stood outside the room where she was giving her testimony from.
Michael O’Higgins, also representing Brady, said this event was a contempt in the face of the court and that if the court was ‘so limp and impotent’ in finding out what had happened, then it had no business continuing the trial. In addition, Ms Murphy said it was difficult to see how Ms Staunton could have been viewed as a reluctant witness and that it was wrong and inappropriate to make the witness hostile at that point in proceedings. She said reasons should have been given as to why this witness was deemed hostile.
Lorcan Staines, for the DPP, said the decision to declare Ms Staunton a hostile witness was a discretionary matter for the trial judge and should not be interfered with by the appellate court.
The State will reply to all grounds concerning Ms Staunton once the appellant has finished that part of the appeal.
Brady, 32, of Crossmaglen, Co. Armagh, was found guilty in 2020 of murdering Detective Garda Donohoe, 41, at Lordship Credit Union in Bellurgan, Co. Louth, on January 25, 2013.
The appeal continues today.
‘This is brushed aside’