McAreavey brands as ‘lies’ claims of police brutality

The widower of honeymooner Michaela McAreavey called out at the trial of two men accused of her murder to brand a defence lawyer a liar.

John McAreavey’s interjection from the court’s public gallery came in response to claims defendant Avinash Treebhoowon was tortured to extract a fabricated confession.

Barrister Sanjeev Teeluckdharry had been outlining the allegations of police brutality as he opened his defence case in the Supreme Court in Port Louis, Mauritius.

Mr McAreavey, seated in the front row of an otherwise quiet gallery, spoke loudly to make clear his view of the lawyer’s account. “Lies,” he said.

Treebhoowon, 31, and Sandip Mooneea, 42, deny strangling the daughter of Tyrone Gaelic football boss Mickey Harte in the luxury Legends Hotel in January last year.

Mr Teeluckdharry, who began presenting his case as the trial entered its sixth week, did not react to Mr McAreavey’s comment and continued with his opening address.

Earlier in the statement, which lasted over an hour, the lawyer had accused the 27-year-old widower of being “evasive and defensive” when he gave evidence to the court.

He was also heavily critical of all elements of the police investigation and expressed surprise that another former Legends employee — Dassen Naraynen — was not in the dock.

The ex-hotel security guard is facing a provisional conspiracy to commit larceny charge but police have stated in court that they do not believe he was involved in Mrs McAreavey’s murder.

The defence counsel alleged Treebhoowon was beaten, made to lie naked on a table and had his head plunged into a pail of water during interrogation.

It was in the middle of that line that Mr McAreavey made his remark. He was sitting with his sister Claire, father Brendan and brother-in-law Mark Harte.

Mr Teeluckdharry earlier accused police officers of being evasive on the stand and on occasion telling “blatant lies” to the court.

“The prosecution evidence from May 22, 2012, up to last Friday [start and close of the state case] can be summarised as follows: ‘I can’t say, I don’t remember, I personally did not do it, I was only acting under instructions, I have to check the records.’

“Ladies and gentlemen, the right to a fair trial includes the right to a fair and impartial inquiry.

“The question for you is, has there been a fair and impartial inquiry or has there been any inquiry at all?”

The lawyer noted that DNA tests carried out by a UK expert on swabs from Mrs McAreavey’s body and the surrounding crime scene had found no link to the two accused. “This report exculpates the two accused parties,” he claimed.

Mr Teeluckdharry said the police had not offered a sufficient explanation why Mr McAreavey’s DNA had been found on some samples.

He noted that potential genetic links to Naraynen had also been found — on a key card used to open the room and on a cupboard inside. “I am surprised just like you why Mr Naraynen is not in the dock,” he told the nine jurors.

The senior defence counsel also criticised the police’s decision not to medically examine Mr McAreavey and Mr Naraynen in the wake of the death.

Mr Teeluckdharry later turned to the testimony given by Mr McAreavey as a prosecution witness.

He said he answered questions “readily” when testifying to state counsel.

“But under cross-examination he became evasive and defensive,” he claimed.

Mr McAreavey told court he had offered to go to the room for Michaela, but she told him not to bother, as he had done that for her the night before. The defence said this did not tally with electronic readings for their room the night before the murder.

The next day in court Mr McAreavey’s lawyer made a statement indicating his client had made an error and the incident when he retrieved the biscuits was actually two days before his wife died.

Yesterday, Mr Teeluckdharry voiced his scepticism.

“When cornered he could not establish the version of events,” he said.

“The next day through counsel he wanted to correct his mistakes. But some mistakes can’t be corrected, ladies and gentlemen.

“Ladies and gentlemen, you are sovereign judges of the facts of this case.

“Judging means dispensing justice, judging means convicting the guilty, judging also means acquitting the innocent.

“The scales of justice have been entrusted in your noble hands.”