O’Brien lawyers seek stay on start of trial

Stay requested in absence of permanent block

Breifne O'Brien: claims it is not possible for him to get a fair trial due to the adverse pre-trial publicity he has received and he wants the court to make orders against the DPP halting his prosecution. Photograph: Collins
Breifne O'Brien: claims it is not possible for him to get a fair trial due to the adverse pre-trial publicity he has received and he wants the court to make orders against the DPP halting his prosecution. Photograph: Collins

Lawyers for businessman Breifne O’Brien, who has asked the High Court to permanently block his trial for offences including theft and deception because of adverse publicity, yesterday said in the absence of a permanent block they will be seeking a stay on the trial starting.

Mr O’Brien’s barrister, Patrick McGrath SC, yesterday told High Court president Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns that if the court is not prepared to prohibit the trial then a stay of some duration will be sought to allow the effect of any adverse publicity in the print and broadcast media to fade away.

Mr O’Brien, Kilmore, Monkstown Grove, Monkstown, Dublin, faces more than 40 charges for theft and deception over an alleged investment fraud. Mr O’Brien, who denies all of the charges, has been sent forward for trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

He is accused of 19 charges of theft involving sums totalling around €11 million from five individuals between 2006 and 2008 and another 19 charges involving alleged deception of the same people. A further seven charges of deception involving €1.9 million relate to one of those five people between 2003 and 2008.

READ SOME MORE

In his High Court action, Mr O’Brien (51) claims it is not possible for him to get a fair trial due to the adverse pre-trial publicity he has received and he wants the court to make orders against the DPP halting his prosecution.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, represented by Siobhan Phelan, has opposed Mr O’Brien’s application. The DPP does not accept that Mr O’Brien is at risk of not getting a fair trial and argues the matter should proceed to trial before a judge and jury.

Yesterday Ms Phelan submitted there had been 66 items in the print media going back to 2008 but none this year. What had been reported since Mr O’Brien had been charged, she said, were factual matters of what had unfolded in court and related to matters of fact.

The case continues today.