Sutton application for legal costs refused

A former building society manager who was cleared of fraudulently laundering €1.1m for builders has had his application for the costs of his trial rejected by Judge Martin Nolan at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

Shane Sutton (aged 42), of Glenbrien, The Lodge, Howth Road, Clontarf was found not guilty on day-three of his recent trial when Judge Nolan directed the jury to acquit him on all 47 counts alleging money-laundering the proceeds of a tax fraud scam for members of the construction industry.

Mr Sutton had denied handling 63 cheques "knowing or believing them to directly or indirectly represent another person’s criminal activity" on dates between December 28, 2000 and April 4, 2003.

It was alleged the cheques were made out to third parties involved in the building trade and operating a tax fraud scam.

The costs application on his behalf was made by defence counsel, Diarmaid McGuinness SC (with Sean Guerin BL) who quoted previous cases in which the Court of Criminal Appeal had awarded costs against the Director of Public Prosecutions and the State.

Mr McGuinness submitted that his client was entitled to recover his costs because, he said, "the State didn’t recognise the infirmity of its case until it looked at what it had to offer and decided then it had no case".

"It is irrelevant for the State to claim it had other evidence in this case because it led none of it," he said.

Mr McGuinness said the jury "heard no evidence at all" against Mr Sutton and "in these circumstances it would be an injustice to be refused even a proportion of my costs".

Judge Nolan ruled against the application after refusing to allow prosecuting counsel, Colm Ó Briain BL, "to refer the court to matters in the Book of Evidence" which counsel claimed included "admissions made by the accused" to the gardai.

Mr Ó Briain said the defence had not applied "to have the court decide on the prima facie case" against Mr Sutton. He said the DPP was entitled to bring the case to trial and Mr Sutton was not entitled to his costs.

"You must have regard to the moral blame worthiness as to whether Mr Sutton drew suspicion on himself," Mr Ó Briain submitted but Mr McGuinness objected when prosecuting counsel attempted to proceed, saying "in the final interview in which ….".

"The State cannot now bring in what was not before the jury," Mr McGuinness interjected.

Judge Nolan agreed and said the matters being referred to by Mr Ó Briain had "not been proven or adjudicated on" and said that while he was against prosecuting counsel "leading the verbal admissions by the accused when interviewed by the gardaí", he believed the DPP had a right to proceed with the case.

Judge Nolan said he had come to the conclusion that the State thought it had "a prosecutable and good case" but that "as in so many cases, things arise in the course of the hearing and action has to be taken".

He added that if the problems had been known at an early stage they could have been sorted out and he must therefore refuse Mr Sutton’s application for costs.

Judge Nolan initially directed the jury to acquit Mr Sutton on 26 of the charges due to the prosecution’s difficulty in proving the origin of cheques.

He then directed that Mr Sutton be found not guilty of all the remaining counts when the State decided it could not proceed with the case.