Gang brothers brought to book under bugging laws

Michael and Eddie O’Loughlin should have remembered what they say about being paranoid — it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

When the brothers from Galway had a third crime thwarted, they began to smell something fishy.

During their sentencing this week in a landmark case, gardaí said the brothers became paranoid at this stage and wondered why so many of their crimes were not going to plan.

But instead of considering they were actually being watched and being more careful, the brothers continued regardless.

A further four crimes — three burglaries and a major drug haul — went awry, followed soon after by their arrest under powerful anti-gangland laws introduced in 2009.

They were subsequently charged for directing a criminal organisation, the first and, so far, only people charged with these offences.

The Criminal Justice Act 2009 created the offence of directing a gang and participating in a gang.

The legislation came against the background of the gangland murders of two innocent Limerick men, Shane Geoghegan and Roy Collins, and the threat posed by witness intimidation. The law would help target gang bosses, who often operate at several removes from the actual criminality.

The O’Loughlins were brought to book thanks to a second piece of legislation introduced in 2009, the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act.

This gave a legal basis for bugging suspected criminals, which up until then was only permissible on phones. The act also allowed the evidence to be admissible in courts.

The O’Loughlin case provided a glimpse into Ireland’s very own version of The Wire, the US series which gave an insight into the use of wire taps by police against drug gangs.

In the O’Loughlin case, gardaí placed bugs in various locations, including two cars. Gardaí recorded 110 days of conversations along with the necessary corroborative evidence, including photographs and eye witness observation.

The prosecution case was obviously so extensive that the O’Loughlins pleaded guilty, albeit to a lesser charge of participating in a gang. This plea was accepted by the DPP, mindful perhaps of the higher threshold required in proving directing a gang.

They each received nine years. There were concerns at the time the legislation was introduced it would fail in its first test in the courts, but this did not happen.

“This was a flagship case from early on,” said a senior garda source. “This was the one we were looking at, a test case of sorts. It’s a boost that it proved successful.”

But he said: “They did plead guilty so the legislation and the methodology was not fully tested. It didn’t go through the full rigor of a trial, a full defence in court, so it’s not a done deal.”

It is understood there are to be six other charges for participation before the courts. In all, 38 people have been arrested under the legislation. Some gardaí have expressed doubt about the legislation, however, and believe the DPP is reluctant to use it. “From files we have sent, and been rejected, I don’t think the DPP considers the legislation to be good.

“He wants the actual crimes themselves to be proved, be it robbery or whatever,” said one source.

He said the O’Loughlin case was different in that it had the bugging evidence, and said “it might give the DPP the confidence to run with a few more”.

But he said surveillance operations like this were hugely resource intensive: “It involves phenomenal manpower. Putting such an operation in place now is not physically possible.”

Justice bills

* The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009:

This amended the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and introduced two key offences:

* Directing the activities of a criminal organisation, punishable by up to life in prison;

* participating in or contributing to a criminal organisation, attracting a possible 15-year jail term;

* furthermore, these offences are automatically tried in the non-jury Special Criminal Court unless otherwise directed by the DPP.

* Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009:

* This gives gardaí, Defence Forces, and Revenue the legal right to carry out surveillance on foot of an application to the courts;

* The surveillance warrant lasts for three months and can be extended for a further three months. Agencies are empowered to carry out urgent surveillance for three days on authorisation of a senior officer;

* The agencies can also place tracking devices to monitor the movement of people, vehicles or things for a period of four months without court approval. Evidence gathered is admissible in criminal proceedings.