The jury in the trial of former officials with Anglo Irish Bank "convicted everyone of everything in a relatively short time", the Court of Criminal Appeal was told yesterday. Brendan Grehan SC, for Anglo's former chief operations officer Tiarnan O'Mahoney, said his client did not get a fair trial and should have been tried separately from his co-accused.
O'Mahoney (56), Enniskerry, Co Wicklow, and Bernard Daly (67), Collins Avenue West, Whitehall, Dublin, a former company secretary, were jailed for conspiring to falsify bank records and conspiring to defraud the Revenue Commissioners. O'Mahoney was also convicted of furnishing incorrect information to the Revenue Commissioners in 2003.
On July 31st last year, he was sentenced to three years in prison by Judge Patrick McCartan, at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. Daly was sentenced to two years in prison. The men are appealing their convictions and the length of their sentences.
Last December, the Court of Appeal quashed an 18-month sentence imposed on former assistant manager Aoife Maguire, for her role in the conspiracy. The court said the sentence was too severe. It reduced it to nine months and suspended the portion not served, releasing her from prison.
Mr Grehan told Mr Justice George Birmingham, sitting with Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan and Mr Justice John Edwards, that there were 21 grounds on which his client was appealing, but the fundamental complaint was that he did not receive a fair trial.
He said there were “a series of unfortunate incidences” and four pieces of evidence that should not have come before the jurors did come before them. Together, they “totally changed” what was a circumstantial case, he said.
These included information that emerged during cross-examination of former head of compliance at the bank, Brian Gillespie; inadmissible evidence given by former deputy IT manager James Shaw; interviews given by Daly to gardaí and an email sent by Ms Maguire.
The email, to former senior manager Zita Vance, stated that Ms Maguire was working directly for O’Mahoney. The message was copied to O’Mahoney. Judge McCartan said this could be used as evidence against Ms Maguire, but not against O’Mahoney as there was no proof he had read the email, Mr Grehan said. “It would not have been admissible against Mr O’Mahoney if he had been tried alone.”
The effect of the email was to associate his client with every other piece of evidence against Ms Maguire, Mr Grehan added. The judge did warn the jury in his closing charge that the email could not be used against O’Mahoney, but he did not explain why it was not evidence.
“I cannot see how the jury could be expected to engage in that type of verbal gymnastics,” Mr Grehan said. He queried whether there was any basis for confidence that the jury did abide by what was said. “One couldn’t say there was any discernment at all in terms of the different roles . . . the jury convicted everyone of everything in a relatively short time,” he said.
The appeal continues.
