Gerry ‘The Monk’ Hutch refused costs after being found not guilty of murder

Gerry “The Monk” Hutch has been refused cover for his legal costs after he was found not guilty of murder at the Special Criminal Court.

The State had opposed an application for costs by lawyers for Mr Hutch after he was found not guilty by the non-jury court of the murder of David Byrne at a Dublin hotel seven years ago.

Mr Byrne, 33, died after being shot six times at a crowded boxing weigh-in event at Dublin’s Regency Hotel on February 5 2016 in one of the first deadly attacks of the Hutch-Kinahan gangland feud.

The attack was described by the court as a “meticulously planned high-velocity assassination” carried out by a six-man hit team which left one man dead and two others injured.

It “sparked mayhem on the streets of Dublin” and resulted in a “series of callous murders”, the court heard.

At the Special Criminal Court on Wednesday, Ms Justice Tara Burns said the court was satisfied that an unfairness did not arise for Mr Hutch in the decision to refuse costs.

She said the prosecution against Mr Hutch was warranted.

She said Mr Hutch had engaged in “serious criminal conduct” when he had possession of the guns which had been used in the killing.

Mr Hutch was recognised as the patriarchal figurehead of the Hutch criminal organisation, and the Hutch gang was responsible for the attack, she said.

She added that it would be a reasonable proposition for the prosecution that nothing of the magnitude of the Regency hotel shooting would have happened without his authority.

A conversation between Mr Hutch and key State witness Jonathan Dowdall as they travelled to Northern Ireland in March 2016, which was secretly taped by gardai, and a Garda interview conducted with Dowdall in May 2016 were among the key parts of evidence during the lengthy murder trial.

Dowdall, who was to stand trial for murder, is serving a four-year prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to facilitating the murder of Mr Byrne.

During judgment proceedings, the court dismissed large portions of his evidence, having concluded that it was extremely concerned with “his relationship with the truth”.

In its verdict in April, the court found that audio evidence in the trial did not include an admission by Mr Hutch that he was present at the murder.

In refusing costs, Ms Justice Burns said the case was based on an assertion from Dowdall that Mr Hutch had made a confession of murder.

The court found it could not act on this without corroborating evidence and there was no such evidence.

She said one could speculate as to what the prosecution’s case was before the inclusion of Dowdall’s evidence, but said it was not a concern for the court as this was not the case Mr Hutch had to meet when he was tried.

She said the prosecution could not assess the issues of Dowdall’s relationship to the evidence prior to the trial, and this was something that arose organically.

Arguing for costs prior to the decision, defence counsel Brendan Grehan SC emphasised that Mr Hutch had been acquitted of the only charge brought against him, which was the murder charge.

Mr Grehan said the case against Mr Hutch had been based largely on the audio surveillance before the evidence of Dowdall was introduced.

He said there had been a lengthy and necessary cross-examination of Dowdall’s evidence at trial.

He said he “can’t apologise” for that as it was his contention that it exposed the “true nature” of Dowdall and issues of his credibility.

He said this was vindicated in the court’s judgment when Mr Hutch was found not guilty.

Mr Grehan said the choice to prosecute for the offence of murder on the basis of the audio was never warranted and a “wrong decision”.

He said the court had given an expansive and detailed consideration to all the factual matters and gave “very firm findings”.

Given the detailed verdict and non-jury nature of the court, he said “no-one is left in any doubt as to why particular conclusions were arrived at”.

He said it would be “unfair” that Mr Hutch would be denied the substantial costs of defending himself against the charge.

He said discussion on other possible charges he could have faced would also be unfair as “failure to exercise that option was due to the action of others, not himself”.

Mr Grehan said it would be somewhat contrary to the ethos of the criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence and the danger of guilt by association to suggest Mr Hutch was partly responsible for attracting suspicion for dealing closely with those linked to crime.

He said this should be particularly guarded against when the accused is operating in the sphere of their own family members, adding people cannot choose their family.

He said there was not a single unambiguous admission by Mr Hutch in the audio about what happened in the Regency throughout 10 hours of unguarded conversation.

On the matter of what the prosecution’s case would have been without Dowdall, Mr Grehan suggested if his evidence was to strengthen the case, it had the opposite effect.

He said there was no “exposition” on what happened between when the DPP said the murder charge for Dowdall would not be dropped and when it was.

“There was no visibility in relation to the prioritisation or the measured and careful way that came about.”

He concluded: “There are no strong valid grounds for why Mr Hutch should not be entitled to his costs.”

In his statement before the decision, prosecuting counsel Sean Gillane SC said he takes “full responsibility” for decisions in the carriage of the case.

He argued the matter to award costs came down to judicial discretion.

He said it was “not unfair” to remind the court of some of its findings in relation to Mr Hutch.

Mr Gillane said he wanted to resist as much as he possibly could the suggestion the court’s verdict involved “vindication” for Mr Hutch.

He said it did not amount to an approbation of him or his conduct.

Mr Gillane said it was relevant to the costs application that a sequence in relation to Mr Hutch and the firearms used to carry out the murder had been established.

He said this was not a passing nor glancing association and was an involved contribution as part of a series of orchestrated events to move the weapons.

He said “we are much further down the dark tunnel” of someone conducting themselves in such a way to bring suspicion on themselves.

Mr Gillane defended the investigation, which involved foreign agencies, the collection of a lot of material and the assessment of evidence from a number of people.

“The prosecution was absolutely warranted,” he said.

Mr Gillane said the verdict of not guilty was “far from the only relevant factor” in deciding the award of costs.

He said the discretion of the court should not be exercised in Mr Hutch’s favour and that he should not be awarded costs.

Ms Justice Burns said the prosecution had not made a serious error of law in prosecuting Mr Hutch and refused costs.