Court told of suspect's unrecorded meetings with senior gardaí

A murder trial has heard that senior gardaí had unrecorded meetings with one of the main suspects and explained the Witness Protection Programme to him before he gave them any information on the killing.

The suspect, Joseph O’Brien, was heavily involved in the murder but has since been granted immunity for testifying against four men on trial for the crime at the Central Criminal Court

John Carroll (aged 33) was shot dead while socialising in Grumpy Jack’s Pub in the Coombe just after 9.30pm on February 18, 2009.

Father-of-two Bernard Hempenstall (aged 28) from Park Terrace, The Coombe, Peter Kenny (aged 28) of McCarthy’s Terrace, Rialto; Damien Johnston (aged 27) of Cashel Avenue, Crumlin; and Christopher Zambra (aged 35) of Galtymore Road, Drimnagh have all pleaded not guilty to murdering the father-of-three.

Detective Sergeant Adrian Whitelaw spent his second day in the witness box yesterday (Thursday), being cross examined by Michael O’Higgins SC, defending Damien Johnston.

He said that on the evening following the murder, gardaí received information that the motorbike and gun used were “in O’Brien’s sister’s house” in Crumlin. He thought of one of his informers, Joseph O’Brien, and confirmed that he had a sister living there.

He said he and a colleague went to the house and saw a motorbike outside. He got a warrant and knocked on the front door, which was answered by O’Brien.

“I asked Joseph O’Brien about the bike. He said it wasn’t his house and had nothing to do with him,” he said.

D Sgt Whitelaw didn’t think he searched O’Brien, something he had the power to do.

“Was the fact that he was one of your agents… was that qualifying him for any special treatment?” asked Mr O’Higgins.

“No,” replied D Sgt Whitelaw, adding that he never classed O’Brien as an agent.

“I contacted Superintendent (PJ) Browne and said that we had found a bike and that Joseph O’Brien was in the house and he asked me if I’d bring him up to meet him,” he continued.

He agreed that the three of them had a meeting lasting several minutes in Kilmainham.

“At the time I didn’t suspect he was involved in the murder. I thought he might be able to give us information,” he said.

He agreed that no record was kept of this meeting, in which O’Brien said he knew nothing but would try to find out something.

“You had your surreptitious little meeting and kept no notes and you’ve someone like me suggesting that you’re a liar on the word of O’Brien,” began Mr O’Higgins.

“I’m telling the truth,” interjected the detective sergeant.

“I’m sure that’s not pleasant, is it?” asked the barrister.

D Sgt Whitlelaw agreed that it was not.

Mr O’Higgins asked how much worse it must be for his client to have O’Brien come into court and implicate him in a murder in circumstances where D Sgt Whitelaw had important meetings with him but had kept no records.

The witness repeated that he and D Sup Browne had not suspected O’Brien then.

“On your account he’s made you look total idiots,” remarked Mr O’Higgins.

“He did fool us,” agreed the witness.

Mr O’Higgins suggested that they did suspect him but decided to let him off the leash for a while to see what they would get back.

“He was completely playing you too,” he said. “You completely underestimated him and within 24 hours, he had set up a mechanism whereby he’ll never have to serve five minutes in jail for his crime.”

D Sgt Whitelaw agreed that a phone call O’Brien made to him later that night was ‘possibly’ to tell him that he had still heard nothing but would keep him updated.

“But he was making plans to leave the country,” continued Mr O’Higgins.

The court has already heard that D Sgt Whitlelaw arrested O’Brien two nights after the murder at Dublin Port.

“He told me at some stage that he knew he was going to be charged with murder,” said D Sgt Whitelaw, agreeing that this could be an incriminating statement.

He said that if a person made an incriminating statement, that person would be cautioned and the statement written down.

Mr O’Higgins asked him if this was done.

“It was not,” replied the witness, but he would not agree that this was “extraordinary”.

“Your relationship with O’Brien was so corrupt that he could make a confession to murder in the comfort that it would never get written down or make it into the official records,” suggested Mr O’Higgins.

“Not true,” replied the witness.

D Sgt Whitelaw explained that usually following such an arrest, a suspect is put into a cell and then taken to an interview room where interviews are recorded on video.

However he said that O’Brien requested to speak to D Sup Browne privately so he took him to his office, where no records were taken.

“And he proceeds to negotiate his liberty…, immunity from prosecution, a new life and financial assistance,” said the barrister.

The witness said he didn’t know O’Brien was going to get immunity.

He agreed that O’Brien wanted assurances about his family’s safety if he talked.

“He said he was a dead man walking. He wanted to know about the Witness Protection Programme,” he said, but he was unsure who had raised the issue.

“Do you think this is satisfactory, that there was a murderer in the room about to negotiate his way out of serving two minutes and you can’t even say who brought up the programme?” asked Mr O‘Higgins.

“It’s obviously not,” he replied.

The trial continues before Mr Justice Barry White and a jury of eight men and four women.