Latest news with #PublicProsecutions
Sunday World
3 days ago
- Sunday World
How Richard Satchwell's defence made last ditch attempt to get jury discharged
REVEALED | He was found guilty by a jury of murdering his wife Tina and burying her under the stairs where she lay for six and a half years. Richard Satchwell (centre) leaving the District Court in Cashel, Co Tipperary, after being charged in connection with the murder of Tina Satchwell (Brian Lawless/PA) The move was resisted by the State, who pointed out that much of the publicity was generated by Satchwell himself. In November last year Brendan Grehan SC, for Satchwell, said that as the media attention was concentrated in Cork, it would be "impossible to retain an impartial jury" there who had not heard of the case and formed "adverse views of Mr Satchwell". Mr Grehan said that most trials can be held in local venues but some generate media attention that can be "macabre" and lead to "greater hostility than it is possible to imagine in an ordinary case." Satchwell's preference, Mr Grehan said, was for the trial to be held in Limerick so it would be closer to the prison where he was being held. "He has a position of responsibility there, which enables him to be a productive prisoner," counsel told the court. Gerardine Small SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the change of venue, arguing that publicity around the case was national, not local. Also, she said, much of that publicity was generated by Satchwell who "sought the attention of the media" by appearing on radio and television shows. Richard Satchwell (centre) leaving the District Court in Cashel, Co Tipperary, after being charged in connection with the murder of Tina Satchwell (Brian Lawless/PA) News in 90 Seconds - May 30th Ms Small pointed to Satchwell's appearances on RTE's 'Prime Time', TV3's 'Ireland AM', the Ray D'Arcy Show and the numerous interviews he gave to journalists. She added: "It is an unusual factor that it [the media attention] can be attributed to the accused man while he was aware the body of his wife was buried where it was." Mr Justice Paul McDermott agreed to change the venue to Dublin, due to the significant risk of an unfair trial. He said: "The high degree of local coverage and engagement with the case takes it out of the ordinary". "SOMEWHAT OF A SIDE SHOW: TWEETS AND CHARGINGS" During the trial and in the absence of the jury, Mr Grehan applied to exclude Satchwell's "cryptic" reply of "Guilty or not guilty, guilty" when he was formally charged with the murder of Tina on October 13, 2023. Counsel said a second part of the application - which was "somewhat of a side show" - was connected to the fact that a member of the press - Paul Byrne, formerly of Virgin Media News - tweeted that Satchwell was going to be charged before gardai had actually done so. He said Superintendent Anne Marie Twomey had received directions from a legal officer at 7.28pm to charge Satchwell with the murder of his wife and he was formally charged at 8:07pm on October 13. Mr Grehan said Mr Byrne had tweeted at 8.03pm that "a man in his 50's had been charged with the murder of Tina Satchwell" - four minutes before his client was formally charged. Counsel said Michael O'Toole, of The Irish Daily Mirror and Irish Daily Star, had "retweeted" at 8.09pm from the handle @mickthehack that "Richard Satchwell had been charged with the murder of his wife". A number of gardai who were called to give evidence in the voir dire denied that they had contacted anyone in the media but accepted that Mr Byrne had tweeted about it several minutes in advance and that Mr O'Toole had named Satchwell as being charged two minutes after it occurred. Mr Grehan said it was "implicit" that contact was made with a number of people in the media "to enable them to do their job". Counsel also submitted that Satchwell should have been informed that he could consult with his solicitor before the charging process took place and was entitled to legal advice "at this critical juncture". "It vitiated the process and the court should not permit the fruits of the charging to be now available to the prosecution," he added. He said the defendant's solicitor Eddie Burke had left the garda station at 7.07pm that evening and didn't arrive back until 8.10pm - three minutes after the charging took place. Read more The lawyer said his client's reply after caution was more prejudicial than probative and would create difficulties in terms of how the jury could be properly directed. In reply, Ms Small said Satchwell, who was interviewed by gardai on ten separate occasions, had a "full appreciation of his entitlement not to say anything" in reply to the caution and was acutely aware of this. The defence, she said, was claiming there is an entitlement to have a solicitor present on charging and she wasn't aware of any such entitlement. She said the entitlement was to legal advice, which Satchwell had received "in abundance". She called the media tweets "completely irrelevant". In his ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said the defendant's reply was fully voluntary and found that the absence of a solicitor in the garda station had not impaired the fairness of the process. He refused to exclude the reply to charge. DIRECTION TO REMOVE MURDER CHARGE FROM INDICTMENT When the prosecution's case was at an end, Mr Grehan applied to the judge to withdraw the charge of murder against his client, submitting there was no evidence of an intention to kill or cause serious injury, which he said was "a huge lacuna" in the State's case. "It is one of the elements of the offence of murder which the prosecution have to adduce evidence of, which they have singularly failed to do," he argued. He said Assistant State Pathologist Dr Margaret Bolster couldn't give a cause of death due to a very long post mortem period and had confirmed there were no broken bones in Tina's body. He said she wasn't able to conclude anything about the state of the organs due to the lapse of time. Mr Grehan said there was an explanation available to the jury as to how death was caused in the case without the evidence of the pathologist or anthropologist and that explanation was given by his client, where Satchwell said the belt of Tina's bathrobe had been held up against her neck until she collapsed. Counsel said this was the only account available as to what happened to Tina and was of "immense importance" as there was no evidence of violence discovered in the post mortem. Counsel said it was significant that Tina's hyoid bone was un-fractured. He said there was also no medical evidence to say that his client's account of holding Tina off with a restraint against her neck before she collapsed suddenly was not possible. In reply, Ms Small submitted that there was "a wealth of evidence" from the surrounding circumstances in the case from which intent could be inferred. Counsel said the deception began on March 20, 2017 very shortly after Satchwell killed Tina and the plethora of lies were an acknowledgement of guilt. Ms Small said a limited post mortem examination was conducted because the defendant had buried his wife in a manner to ensure the cause of death wasn't available. She added: "There is also motive on his own account, Satchwell says she is threatening to leave him. She has wasted 28 years of her life, that is all part of the evidence for the jury to accept or not". Mr Grehan said the lies told were not sufficient to show intent for murder. Referring to motive, he said there was also clearly a basis for which Tina might have wanted nothing further to do with her husband and attacked him in that manner. In his ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said Satchwell's immediate response was to create a false impression that Tina was alive and he had taken every conceivable step to protect himself. He said Satchwell told lie after lie "to any journalist who'd indulge him" and portrayed a scenario that his wife had deserted him suddenly without any explanation. Mr Justice McDermott said Satchwell had shown a degree of malevolence towards his wife and the defendant was totally focused on protecting himself from discovery. There had been, he said, a period of six prolonged years before Tina's body, of which Satchwell had disposed of, was found and this was relevant to the issue of intention. He said it was a matter for the jury as to whether Satchwell had formed the requisite intent and whether he was guilty of his wife's murder. He rejected the application to withdraw the murder charge. APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE THE JURY At the very end of the trial, when Mr Justice McDermott had finished charging the jurors, Mr Grehan said on foot of instructions from his client he "regrettably" had to seek the discharge of the jury Counsel voiced his opposition to the tone of the charge, which he said was intended to "nudge" the jurors towards a guilty verdict. Counsel said he became increasingly concerned as the charge proceeded that it was not resembling a charge but a "second prosecution speech" in terms of the emphasis the court was placing on the State's case to the detriment of the defence. Mr Grehan told the judge he had not put the defence case in full at all to the jury. He said the two separate tasks of directions on the law and a summary of the evidence had become "intermingled" and submitted there was no balance in what had been said to the panel. "The whole emphasis of what was said to the court seemed to be to reiterate the prosecution case," he argued. Mr Grehan said the facts of the case "shouted and screamed for themselves" in terms of what Satchwell did and didn't do. "They are not facts that need to be nudged or pushed for the jury in any particular way". Counsel said it was beyond remedy at this stage and the court should discharge the jury. Ms Small called Mr Grehan's application "wholly inappropriate", describing the charge as balanced, fair and extremely comprehensible. "The criticism is unfounded, a court will rarely outline all the evidence, that is a matter for the jury". In his ruling, the judge said this was a difficult case in which to sum up the evidence for the jury and he didn't accept that his charge was "so wildly unbalanced". He disagreed that the absence of references to certain parts of the evidence in any sense justified the jury being discharged. Mr Justice McDermott refused the application but did give the jury further directions in relation to two matters of which complaints were made, one relating to the detailed evidence of Lorraine Howard concerning her half sister Tina, the other to evidence that Satchwell loved or was "besotted" with his wife.
Irish Examiner
3 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Satchwell guilty of murder: Here's what the jury didn't hear
TRIAL MOVED TO DUBLIN Richard Satchwell's trial was initially scheduled to sit in his home county of Cork but, due to the "intense publicity" surrounding the case, his lawyers applied late last year to move the trial to the capital. The move was resisted by the State, who pointed out that much of the publicity was generated by Satchwell himself. In November last year Brendan Grehan SC, for Satchwell, said that as the media attention was concentrated in Cork, it would be "impossible to retain an impartial jury" there who had not heard of the case and formed "adverse views of Mr Satchwell". Mr Grehan said that most trials can be held in local venues but some generate media attention that can be "macabre" and lead to "greater hostility than it is possible to imagine in an ordinary case." Satchwell's preference, Mr Grehan said, was for the trial to be held in Limerick so it would be closer to the prison where he was being held. "He has a position of responsibility there, which enables him to be a productive prisoner," counsel told the court. Gerardine Small SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the change of venue, arguing that publicity around the case was national, not local. File picture: Collins Courts Gerardine Small SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the change of venue, arguing that publicity around the case was national, not local. Also, she said, much of that publicity was generated by Satchwell who "sought the attention of the media" by appearing on radio and television shows. Ms Small pointed to Satchwell's appearances on RTÉ's Prime Time, TV3's Ireland AM, the Ray D'Arcy Show and the numerous interviews he gave to journalists. She added: "It is an unusual factor that it [the media attention] can be attributed to the accused man while he was aware the body of his wife was buried where it was." Mr Justice Paul McDermott agreed to change the venue to Dublin, due to the significant risk of an unfair trial. He said: "The high degree of local coverage and engagement with the case takes it out of the ordinary." 'SOMEWHAT OF A SIDE SHOW: TWEETS AND CHARGINGS' During the trial and in the absence of the jury, Mr Grehan applied to exclude Satchwell's "cryptic" reply of "Guilty or not guilty, guilty" when he was formally charged with the murder of Tina on October 13, 2023. Counsel said a second part of the application - which was "somewhat of a side show" - was connected to the fact that a member of the press - Paul Byrne, formerly of Virgin Media News - tweeted that Satchwell was going to be charged before gardaí had actually done so. He said Superintendent Anne Marie Twomey had received directions from a legal officer at 7.28pm to charge Satchwell with the murder of his wife and he was formally charged at 8:07pm on October 13. Mr Grehan said Mr Byrne had tweeted at 8.03pm that "a man in his 50's had been charged with the murder of Tina Satchwell" - four minutes before his client was formally charged. Counsel said Michael O'Toole, of The Irish Daily Mirror and Irish Daily Star, had "retweeted" at 8.09pm from the handle @mickthehack that "Richard Satchwell had been charged with the murder of his wife". A number of gardaí who were called to give evidence in the voir dire denied that they had contacted anyone in the media but accepted that Mr Byrne had tweeted about it several minutes in advance and that Mr O'Toole had named Satchwell as being charged two minutes after it occurred. Mr Grehan said it was "implicit" that contact was made with a number of people in the media "to enable them to do their job". Counsel also submitted that Satchwell should have been informed that he could consult with his solicitor before the charging process took place and was entitled to legal advice "at this critical juncture". "It vitiated the process and the court should not permit the fruits of the charging to be now available to the prosecution," he added. Richard Satchwell's Senior council Brendan Grehan (left) and solicitor Eddie Burke. During the trial and in the absence of the jury, Mr Grehan applied to exclude Satchwell's 'cryptic' reply of 'Guilty or not guilty, guilty' when he was formally charged with the murder of Tina on October 13, 2023. Photo: Niall Carson/PA He said the defendant's solicitor Eddie Burke had left the garda station at 7.07pm that evening and didn't arrive back until 8.10pm - three minutes after the charging took place. The lawyer said his client's reply after caution was more prejudicial than probative and would create difficulties in terms of how the jury could be properly directed. In reply, Ms Small said Satchwell, who was interviewed by gardaí on 10 separate occasions, had a "full appreciation of his entitlement not to say anything" in reply to the caution and was acutely aware of this. The defence, she said, was claiming there is an entitlement to have a solicitor present on charging and she wasn't aware of any such entitlement. She said the entitlement was to legal advice, which Satchwell had received "in abundance". She called the media tweets "completely irrelevant". In his ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said the defendant's reply was fully voluntary and found that the absence of a solicitor in the garda station had not impaired the fairness of the process. He refused to exclude the reply to charge. DIRECTION TO REMOVE MURDER CHARGE FROM INDICTMENT When the prosecution's case was at an end, Mr Grehan applied to the judge to withdraw the charge of murder against his client, submitting there was no evidence of an intention to kill or cause serious injury, which he said was "a huge lacuna" in the State's case. "It is one of the elements of the offence of murder which the prosecution have to adduce evidence of, which they have singularly failed to do," he argued. He said Assistant State Pathologist Dr Margaret Bolster couldn't give a cause of death due to a very long post mortem period and had confirmed there were no broken bones in Tina's body. He said she wasn't able to conclude anything about the state of the organs due to the lapse of time. Mr Grehan said there was an explanation available to the jury as to how death was caused in the case without the evidence of the pathologist or anthropologist and that explanation was given by his client, where Satchwell said the belt of Tina's bathrobe had been held up against her neck until she collapsed. Counsel said this was the only account available as to what happened to Tina and was of "immense importance" as there was no evidence of violence discovered in the post mortem. Counsel said it was significant that Tina's hyoid bone was unfractured. He said there was also no medical evidence to say that his client's account of holding Tina off with a restraint against her neck before she collapsed suddenly was not possible. In a ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said Richard Satchwell's (pictured) immediate response was to create a false impression that Tina was alive and he had taken every conceivable step to protect himself. File photo: Brian Lawless/PA In reply, Ms Small submitted that there was "a wealth of evidence" from the surrounding circumstances in the case from which intent could be inferred. Counsel said the deception began on March 20, 2017, very shortly after Satchwell killed Tina and the plethora of lies were an acknowledgement of guilt. Ms Small said a limited post mortem examination was conducted because the defendant had buried his wife in a manner to ensure the cause of death wasn't available. She added: "There is also motive on his own account, Satchwell says she is threatening to leave him. She has wasted 28 years of her life, that is all part of the evidence for the jury to accept or not." Mr Grehan said the lies told were not sufficient to show intent for murder. Referring to motive, he said there was also clearly a basis for which Tina might have wanted nothing further to do with her husband and attacked him in that manner. In his ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said Satchwell's immediate response was to create a false impression that Tina was alive and he had taken every conceivable step to protect himself. He said Satchwell told lie after lie "to any journalist who'd indulge him" and portrayed a scenario that his wife had deserted him suddenly without any explanation. Mr Justice McDermott said Satchwell had shown a degree of malevolence towards his wife and the defendant was totally focused on protecting himself from discovery. There had been, he said, a period of six prolonged years before Tina's body, of which Satchwell had disposed of, was found and this was relevant to the issue of intention. He said it was a matter for the jury as to whether Satchwell had formed the requisite intent and whether he was guilty of his wife's murder. He rejected the application to withdraw the murder charge. APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE THE JURY At the very end of the trial, when Mr Justice McDermott had finished charging the jurors, Mr Grehan said on foot of instructions from his client he "regrettably" had to seek the discharge of the jury. Counsel voiced his opposition to the tone of the charge, which he said was intended to "nudge" the jurors towards a guilty verdict. Counsel said he became increasingly concerned as the charge proceeded that it was not resembling a charge but a "second prosecution speech" in terms of the emphasis the court was placing on the State's case to the detriment of the defence. Mr Grehan told the judge he had not put the defence case in full at all to the jury. He said the two separate tasks of directions on the law and a summary of the evidence had become "intermingled" and submitted there was no balance in what had been said to the panel. "The whole emphasis of what was said to the court seemed to be to reiterate the prosecution case," he argued. Richard Satchwell's Senior council Brendan Grehan (left) and solicitor Eddie Burke. Mr Grehan had sought the discharge of the jury on foot of instructions from his client. Photo: Niall Carson/PA Mr Grehan said the facts of the case "shouted and screamed for themselves" in terms of what Satchwell did and didn't do. "They are not facts that need to be nudged or pushed for the jury in any particular way". Counsel said it was beyond remedy at this stage and the court should discharge the jury. Ms Small called Mr Grehan's application "wholly inappropriate", describing the charge as balanced, fair and extremely comprehensible. "The criticism is unfounded, a court will rarely outline all the evidence, that is a matter for the jury". In his ruling, the judge said this was a difficult case in which to sum up the evidence for the jury and he didn't accept that his charge was "so wildly unbalanced". He disagreed that the absence of references to certain parts of the evidence in any sense justified the jury being discharged. Mr Justice McDermott refused the application but did give the jury further directions in relation to two matters of which complaints were made, one relating to the detailed evidence of Lorraine Howard concerning her half sister Tina, the other to evidence that Satchwell loved or was "besotted" with his wife. Read More How a concrete patch under the stairs in Youghal revealed Tina Satchwell's tragic fate
RTÉ News
3 days ago
- Politics
- RTÉ News
What the jury didn't hear during Satchwell murder trial
Richard Satchwell's trial was initially scheduled to sit in his home county of Cork but due to the "intense publicity" surrounding the case, his lawyers applied late last year to move the trial to the capital. The move was resisted by the State, who pointed out that much of the publicity was generated by Satchwell himself. In November last year, Brendan Grehan SC, for Satchwell, said that as the media attention was concentrated in Cork, it would be "impossible to retain an impartial jury" there who had not heard of the case and formed "adverse views of Mr Satchwell". Mr Grehan said that most trials can be held in local venues but some generate media attention that can be "macabre" and lead to "greater hostility than it is possible to imagine in an ordinary case." Satchwell's preference, Mr Grehan said, was for the trial to be held in Limerick so it would be closer to the prison where he was being held. "He has a position of responsibility there, which enables him to be a productive prisoner," counsel told the court. Gerardine Small SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the change of venue, arguing that publicity around the case was national, not local. Also, she said, much of that publicity was generated by Satchwell who "sought the attention of the media" by appearing on radio and television shows. Ms Small pointed to Satchwell's appearances on RTÉ's 'Prime Time', TV3's 'Ireland AM', the Ray D'Arcy Show and the numerous interviews he gave to journalists. She added: "It is an unusual factor that it [the media attention] can be attributed to the accused man while he was aware the body of his wife was buried where it was." Mr Justice Paul McDermott agreed to change the venue to Dublin, due to the significant risk of an unfair trial. He said: "The high degree of local coverage and engagement with the case takes it out of the ordinary". Satchwell's 'cryptic' reply During the trial and in the absence of the jury, Mr Grehan applied to exclude Satchwell's "cryptic" reply of "Guilty or not guilty, guilty" when he was formally charged with the murder of 13 Tina on October 2023. Counsel said a second part of the application, which was "somewhat of a side show", was connected to the fact that a member of the press, Paul Byrne, formerly of Virgin Media News, tweeted that Satchwell was going to be charged before gardaí had actually done so. He said Superintendent Anne Marie Twomey had received directions from a legal officer at 7.28pm to charge Satchwell with the murder of his wife and he was formally charged at 8.07pm on 13 October. Mr Grehan said Mr Byrne had tweeted at 8.03pm that "a man in his 50's had been charged with the murder of Tina Satchwell" - four minutes before his client was formally charged. Counsel said Michael O'Toole, of The Irish Daily Mirror and Irish Daily Star, had "retweeted" at 8.09pm from the handle @mickthehack that "Richard Satchwell had been charged with the murder of his wife". A number of gardaí who were called to give evidence in the voir dire denied that they had contacted anyone in the media but accepted that Mr Byrne had tweeted about it several minutes in advance and that Mr O'Toole had named Satchwell as being charged two minutes after it occurred. Mr Grehan said it was "implicit" that contact was made with a number of people in the media "to enable them to do their job". Counsel also submitted that Satchwell should have been informed that he could consult with his solicitor before the charging process took place and was entitled to legal advice "at this critical juncture". "It vitiated the process and the court should not permit the fruits of the charging to be now available to the prosecution," he added. He said the defendant's solicitor Eddie Burke had left the garda station at 7.07pm that evening and did not arrive back until 8.10pm, three minutes after the charging took place. The lawyer said his client's reply after caution was more prejudicial than probative and would create difficulties in terms of how the jury could be properly directed. In reply, Ms Small said Satchwell, who was interviewed by gardaí on ten separate occasions, had a "full appreciation of his entitlement not to say anything" in reply to the caution and was acutely aware of this. The defence, she said, was claiming there is an entitlement to have a solicitor present on charging and she wasn't aware of any such entitlement. She said the entitlement was to legal advice, which Satchwell had received "in abundance". She called the media tweets "completely irrelevant". In his ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said the defendant's reply was fully voluntary and found that the absence of a solicitor in the garda station had not impaired the fairness of the process. He refused to exclude the reply to charge. Defence asked judge to withdraw murder charge When the prosecution's case was at an end, Mr Grehan applied to the judge to withdraw the charge of murder against his client, submitting there was no evidence of an intention to kill or cause serious injury, which he said was "a huge lacuna" in the State's case. "It is one of the elements of the offence of murder which the prosecution have to adduce evidence of, which they have singularly failed to do," he argued. He said Assistant State Pathologist Dr Margaret Bolster couldn't give a cause of death due to a very long post-mortem period and had confirmed there were no broken bones in Tina's body. He said she wasn't able to conclude anything about the state of the organs due to the lapse of time. Mr Grehan said there was an explanation available to the jury as to how death was caused in the case without the evidence of the pathologist or anthropologist and that explanation was given by his client, where Satchwell said the belt of Tina's bathrobe had been held up against her neck until she collapsed. Counsel said this was the only account available as to what happened to Tina and was of "immense importance" as there was no evidence of violence discovered in the post-mortem. Counsel said it was significant that Tina's hyoid bone was unfractured. He said there was also no medical evidence to say that his client's account of holding Tina off with a restraint against her neck before she collapsed suddenly was not possible. In reply, Ms Small submitted that there was "a wealth of evidence" from the surrounding circumstances in the case from which intent could be inferred. Counsel said the deception began on 20 March 2017 very shortly after Satchwell killed Tina and the plethora of lies were an acknowledgement of guilt. Ms Small said a limited post-mortem examination was conducted because the defendant had buried his wife in a manner to ensure the cause of death wasn't available. She added: "There is also motive on his own account, Satchwell says she is threatening to leave him. She has wasted 28 years of her life, that is all part of the evidence for the jury to accept or not". Mr Grehan said the lies told were not sufficient to show intent for murder. Referring to motive, he said there was also clearly a basis for which Tina might have wanted nothing further to do with her husband and attacked him in that manner. In his ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said Satchwell's immediate response was to create a false impression that Tina was alive and he had taken every conceivable step to protect himself. He said Satchwell told lie after lie "to any journalist who'd indulge him" and portrayed a scenario that his wife had deserted him suddenly without any explanation. Mr Justice McDermott said Satchwell had shown a degree of malevolence towards his wife and the defendant was totally focused on protecting himself from discovery. There had been, he said, a period of six prolonged years before Tina's body, of which Satchwell had disposed of, was found and this was relevant to the issue of intention. He said it was a matter for the jury as to whether Satchwell had formed the requisite intent and whether he was guilty of his wife's murder. He rejected the application to withdraw the murder charge. Counsel voiced opposition to tone of judge's charge to jury At the very end of the trial, when Mr Justice McDermott had finished charging the jurors, Mr Grehan said on foot of instructions from his client he "regrettably" had to seek the discharge of the jury. Counsel voiced his opposition to the tone of the charge, which he said was intended to "nudge" the jurors towards a guilty verdict. Counsel said he became increasingly concerned as the charge proceeded that it was not resembling a charge but a "second prosecution speech" in terms of the emphasis the court was placing on the State's case to the detriment of the defence. Mr Grehan told the judge he had not put the defence case in full at all to the jury. He said the two separate tasks of directions on the law and a summary of the evidence had become "intermingled" and submitted there was no balance in what had been said to the panel. "The whole emphasis of what was said to the court seemed to be to reiterate the prosecution case," he argued. Mr Grehan said the facts of the case "shouted and screamed for themselves" in terms of what Satchwell did and didn't do. "They are not facts that need to be nudged or pushed for the jury in any particular way," he said. Counsel said it was beyond remedy at this stage and the court should discharge the jury. Ms Small called Mr Grehan's application "wholly inappropriate", describing the charge as balanced, fair and extremely comprehensible. "The criticism is unfounded, a court will rarely outline all the evidence, that is a matter for the jury," she said. In his ruling, the judge said this was a difficult case in which to sum up the evidence for the jury and he did not accept that his charge was "so wildly unbalanced". He disagreed that the absence of references to certain parts of the evidence in any sense justified the jury being discharged. Mr Justice McDermott refused the application but did give the jury further directions in relation to two matters of which complaints were made, one relating to the detailed evidence of Lorraine Howard concerning her half sister Tina, the other to evidence that Satchwell loved or was "besotted" with his wife.
Irish Examiner
4 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Extradition of leading Kinahan crime gang figure 'a significant development', senior garda says
The extradition of one of the most senior members of the Kinahan crime gang back to Ireland is a "significant development" in disrupting and dismantling international organised crime gangs, one of the country's most senior gardaí has said. Deputy Commissioner Shawna Coxon said securing the return of Sean McGovern, considered to be the right-hand man of cartel leader Daniel Kinahan, from the United Arab Emirates was the result of 'extensive' cooperation and 'highly detailed and intricate investigative work' with other international law enforcement agencies. The senior garda said international gangs cause misery to communities across the globe. "They engage in murder, human trafficking and drug dealing,' she said. Tackling these gangs not only makes Ireland safer, but all the other countries they operate in as well. Sean McGovern had been in custody in the Middle East for the past seven months. He is wanted by gardaí in relation to the killing of Noel Kirwan in December 2016 during a period of heightened hostilities between the Kinahan and Hutch drug gangs. The UAE extradition treaty was signed last October by then minister for justice Helen McEntee, and officially went live 10 days ago. Ms Coxon said she was 'constrained' to an extent in what she could say given the extradition operation was still live. However, she commended the work of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice, together with the Director of Public Prosecutions and also praised the Emirati minister of justice operating within the UAE Abdullah Bin Sultan Bin Awad Al Nuaimi, commenting 'police-to-police cooperation globally is critical to the dismantling of organised crime'. Justice minister Jim O'Callaghan said the negotiation of the extradition treaty had resulted from 'tireless work by An Garda Síochána and officials in my own department with their UAE counterparts'. Read More Still unclear if any career gardaí will apply for top Garda role
Belfast Telegraph
5 days ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Decision to place UVF chief Winkie Irvine in Maghaberry's segregated loyalist wing is slammed
Irvine was sentenced last week for firearms offences. According to reports, the 49-year-old asked to be placed on the paramilitary wing despite not being convicted of any terrorism-related offences. Irvine, from Ballysillan Road in north Belfast, was handed a two-and-a-half year sentence after he admitted a range of firearm and ammunition offences – a sentence well below the minimum five years for the offences admitted. He will spend half in custody and the rest on licence. At Belfast Crown Court, his co-accused, Robin Workman (54), of Shore Road, Larne, was sentenced to five years – half of which will be served on licence. Both men had pleaded guilty to possessing firearms and ammunition in suspicious circumstances. While judges must take account of aggravating and mitigating factors when sentencing, questions have been raised over Judge Gordon Kerr's sentence. Ex-UUP leader Doug Beattie is among those who have raised concerns. 'It's going from the bizarre to the ludicrous in so many ways,' he told BBC Radio Ulster's Nolan Show. 'The more you look at this, the more you just cannot understand what's going on. To the person on the street, it's unfathomable where we find ourselves now. 'I've said this before – take away the personality, take away the flag of convenience that these people use, look at this with the facts in front of you. 'They tell you this man was a serious danger. Those weapons were destined to go somewhere or were coming from somewhere. That needed the minimum sentence. Then you add the personality to it and you suddenly realise this person has been given so much privilege in what he's been doing. 'This should have been an aggravating factor. He should have got more than five years because of that. It's absolutely ludicrous.' Mr Beattie said ending segregation in prisons should have happened a long time ago. 'On the issue of separation in prison, I believe it should be gone,' he added, referring to the practice which allows prisoners convicted of paramilitary offences to be housed with fellow paramilitary prisoners. 'It might not be as privileged as people think. I did notice on one occasion where prisoners are locked in their cells to eat lunch, for example, whereas those on the separate regime are allowed to freely mingle together. They get more time out of their cells. 'But that's not the point here. The point is we in society are trying to get rid of those who class themselves as brigadiers in our society. We go through the law, put them in jail, and what do we do in jail? We put them on a wing that gives them that kudos of being a brigadier. When they come out, they go back to doing exactly what they were doing before with that extra kudos hanging over their shoulders. 'That's why I have always argued that the separated prison regime should go. It should have gone a long time ago. 'I will be meeting the Director of Public Prosecutions today for a long-standing appointment about sentencing in general, but I will be raising this particular issue. 'The confidence in our justice system is at an all-time low because of the way we look at issues of sentencing, and particularly at issues like this where somebody was caught with weapons, live ammunition and still hasn't said what they were for and where they were going. 'It's absolutely rubbing the noses of law-abiding citizens into the ground when we see something like this happening. There may be good reasons for all of this, but if that's the case then people need to come out and tell us what those good reasons are. We need that transparency and I haven't seen that. 'I cannot understand why Winston Irvine was not charged under terrorist legislation and why he was not sentenced under terrorist legislation. All of the evidence, as far as I'm concerned as a lay person, tells me there is absolutely a link here.' Watch: Winston 'Winkie' Irivine arrives at Laganside Courts The Northern Ireland Prison Service does not comment on individual prisoners. On the wider issue of separation - if a prisoner, whether sentenced or on remand, applies for and subsequently meets the criteria set by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for separation, then the Prison Service holds that individual in accommodation apart from the integrated population.'A spokesperson for the Department of Justice said: '
