Courts

Aaron Brady exhausts final chance of appeal over murder of Garda Adrian Donohoe

Supreme Court rejects all grounds under which Brady’s lawyers claimed trial was unfair

Aaron Brady: The Supreme Court issued a judgment in which it considered the 'large volume of material' submitted by Brady’s lawyers. The court rejected all grounds, finding none of the points raised 'any novel issue of law or matter of general public importance'. Photograph: Collins Courts
Aaron Brady: The Supreme Court issued a judgment in which it considered the 'large volume of material' submitted by Brady’s lawyers. The court rejected all grounds, finding none of the points raised 'any novel issue of law or matter of general public importance'. Photograph: Collins Courts
Eoin Reynolds
Thu Nov 21 2024 - 21:38

Aaron Brady, who murdered Det Garda Adrian Donohoe during a credit union robbery in 2013, has exhausted the final legal avenue to overturn his conviction.

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a lengthy judgment in which it considered the “large volume of material” submitted by Brady’s lawyers in their bid for permission to argue that his trial was unfair.

The court rejected all grounds, finding that none of the points raised “any novel issue of law or matter of general public importance”.

While the court accepted that Brady’s trial had taken place in “challenging circumstances”, due largely to the Covid pandemic and lockdown in 2020, it also found that the trial judge had “managed a difficult trial fairly and with conspicuous care and skill”.

READ SOME MORE

[ Aaron Brady loses appeal over conviction for murder of Det Garda Adrian Donohoe ]

The Court of Appeal then “engaged meticulously” with Brady’s “many grounds of appeal before concluding that none were made out”, the Supreme Court justices wrote.

They added: “The Court of Appeal’s (necessarily) lengthy judgment is a model of its kind. The grounds of appeal relied on before this court essentially replicate the corresponding grounds relied on before the Court of Appeal, without seeking to identify any error in the Court of Appeal’s detailed analysis of those grounds or its conclusions on them.”

The ruling concluded that the interests of justice do not warrant a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

In August 2020, Brady (33) formerly of New Road, Crossmaglen, Co Armagh, was convicted by a jury of the murder of Det Garda Donohoe during a credit union robbery at Lordship, Bellurgan, Co Louth, on January 25th, 2013.

Brady has been in prison since 2017. Following his conviction, Mr Justice Michael White sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum time served of 40 years. With ordinary remission, Brady will be able to apply for parole after he has spent 30 years in prison, when he will be 57 years old.

[ Court declines to dismiss charge against man of perverting course of justice during Aaron Brady trial ]

Det Garda Donohoe had been escorting employees from various credit unions on the Cooley peninsula in Co Louth to bring their day’s takings to a bank in Dundalk.

As they prepared to leave the Lordship Credit Union car park, Brady and three other raiders jumped over the wall at the moment a Volkswagen Passat blocked the entrance.

Det Garda Donohoe got out of the patrol car but Brady pointed an automatic or pump action shotgun at him and fired a single shot to the head from about six feet away, killing him instantly. Det Garda Donohoe’s gun remained in its holster on his hip.

Brady was tied to the raid by various strands of circumstantial evidence, including that he was involved in the theft of the Passat that the raiders used to block the car park entrance and as a getaway vehicle. He was convicted of murder by the testimony of two people who heard Brady admit to killing a “cop” or a garda while Brady was living in America, having fled Ireland in the wake of the murder.

[ Aaron Brady pleads guilty to perverting the course of justice ]

Brady’s lawyers argued that there was evidence that one of those witnesses, Daniel Cahill, had been put under pressure by Homeland Security in America to testify against Brady. They complained that a Homeland Security special agent refused to answer questions relating to Mr Cahill’s status as a resident in the US. However, the Supreme Court found that this argument, along with the other grounds of appeal, were properly dealt with by the trial judge and examined by the Court of Appeal.

They added: “It is apparent from the material before this court that the judge dealt with all of those issues clearly and carefully and generally managed a difficult and challenging trial exceptionally well.”