Breifne O’Brien trial will proceed next year

Businessman Breifne O’Brien has lost his High Court bid to permanently block his trial for offences including theft and deception.

Mr O’Brien (51), Kilmore, Monkstown Grove, Monkstown, Dublin, had claimed he could not get a fair trial due to significant levels of adverse publicity in the print and broadcast media.

Yesterday, the President of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns directed that the trial could proceed after a 12-month period.

He had reservations about the trial proceeding “in the immediate future” due to the media coverage Mr O’Brien has received, the judge said.

Mr O’Brien, who denies all the charges against him, has been sent forward for trial before a judge and jury at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. The DPP had opposed his judicial review application to prevent the trial.

Forty-five charges
Mr O'Brien is accused of 19 charges of theft involving sums totalling about €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.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Kearns said it was “undeniable” there had been “extensive factual and emotional publicity concerning Mr O’Brien”.

Having assessed what impact this publicity might have on a jury, he was satisfied the trial should be allowed to proceed.

Certain matters complained of by Mr O’Brien such as allegedly prejudicial comments by a judge or a chapter in a book had long been cured by the operation of “a fade factor”, he said.

Press freedom
"In any liberal democracy the press and media must be free to expose alleged wrongdoing," he said. "Otherwise, one would have to query whether national newspapers and TV outlets would have any worthwhile function beyond reporting on sports events or the screening of game shows if deprived of this central role."

It was questionable how much remained in the minds of TV viewers who watched broadcasts about Mr O’Brien, he said. The fact that many ongoing drama series seemed to require reminders of what happened in previous episodes suggested viewers’ memories for previously seen material was “decidedly limited”.

However, given the nature and volume of the newspaper and TV reporting about Mr O’Brien, the trial would be “characterised as carrying a significant risk of being unfair” if it started soon, he said.

He directed that the trial should be stayed for 12 months from the date of the ruling and added that Mr O’Brien was not precluded from bringing a further application if there was a “significant recrudescence” of adverse publicity between now and the trial scheduled for the second quarter of 2014.