Behind bars, the drug trial juror who took bribes
A JUROR yesterday was convicted of taking a bribe during a five-month money laundering and drug trafficking trial.
Former classroom assistant Catherine Leahy, 62, is behind bars after a jury found her guilty of accepting an ‘advantage’ to perform her task as a juror ‘improperly’.
She was the spokesman on a jury at the High Court in Glasgow which acquitted alleged drug dealer Graham Clarke and others. The Crown may now seek a retrial of that case.
Yesterday at the High Court, judge Lord Turnbull told Leahy: ‘You took advantage of your public responsibility of jury service and you took a bribe.
‘This is conduct which strikes at the heart of the justice system. It is matched in its gravity by its rareness. It is obvious that for such a serious offence only a custodial sentence can be imposed.’
Prosecutor Iain McSporran, QC, said the Crown’s position was that four amounts of cash paid to Leahy’s Santander account between April 19 and June 2, 2016, was bribe money. These sums of £300, £1,000, £1,200 and £330 amounted to £2,830.
Leahy, of Springboig, Glasgow, denied she had been bribed saying in evidence ‘absolutely not’.
She claimed the money came from a cheque for £7,446.77 she received from British Shipbuilders and menage money.
But after deliberating for three hours the jury found her guilty by majority.
The court heard that the day after the verdict in the Clarke trial the procurator fiscal’s office received a tip-off that members of the jury may have been bribed.
A probe into all the jurors’ finances was ordered at the highest level after suspicion fell on Leahy.
Her Glasgow home was bugged from September 19 to 30, 2016.
The probe into Leahy’s finances was led by Detective Inspector Graeme Everest of the organised crime and counter terrorism financial investigations unit.
High-level discussions, including a meeting between Lord Advocate James Wolffe, QC, and the Lord President, Lord Carloway – Scotland’s top judge – led to the decision being taken to bug the house Leahy shared with her son Joseph, 22, who was originally on trial with his mother. He walked free when the charges against him were dropped.
The court heard that a trawl of jurors’ bank accounts led to one person – Catherine Leahy. In total, 31 conversations between Leahy and her son were recorded by the bug.
At one point Mr Leahy is heard to say: ‘Mum, it wasn’t just you that got bribed so that now when they come to you, you’re a step ahead.’
His mother then said: ‘There is nothing that can link you with them.’
Leahy is also heard saying she hopes her son’s car was not bugged and then adds: ‘That night I went down there nobody could have seen me.’
She served as a juror in the trial of Graham Clarke, his wife Lindsay and others. All the charges against Mr Clarke were not proven and his wife was convicted of mortgage fraud.
The trial ran from November 2, 2015, to April 14, 2016. One juror was dismissed during the trial.
Leahy denied acting improperly as a juror and taking ‘a bung’ and claimed that when she heard rumours of jury nobbling she treated it as a joke.
The court heard that Leahy did not have a lot of money and had to work to a strict budget, and that at the time of the trial she had her salary as a classroom assistant and a widow’s pension.
As she was led away to the cells Leahy blew a kiss to son Joseph, who was sitting in the public benches.
Lord Turnbull deferred sentence until next month for background reports. He told the jury: ‘This has been a most unusual case. I’m not personally aware of a previous case of a juror taking a bribe in the course of a trial.’
Last night Detective Chief Superintendent Gerry McLean said: ‘There can be no place in Scotland for those involved in criminal activity to undermine the rule of law.
‘It was important for Police Scotland to take all reasonable steps to guard this position and to protect jurors from such interference or intimidation.’
The Crown Office confirmed it may now seek a retrial.
A spokesman said: ‘We note the outcome of this case. Further consideration will be given to the circumstances of the original trial in which Leahy served as a juror.’
It is understood the Crown can ask the court for authority to bring a fresh prosecution in cases where someone was previously acquitted, in certain circumstances.
This can include when an offence against the course of justice in the original trial is considered to have been committed.
‘Strikes at the heart of justice’