Michael Lynn’s request for adjournment of fraud trial rejected

The High Court has rejected an application by former solicitor Michael Lynn to adjourn his trial for alleged fraud which is due to start before a jury next Monday. Mr Justice Charles Meenan was satisfied that Circuit Court Judge Martin Nolan, who twice rejected similar applications in the last two months, was correct in his decision.

Mr Lynn is facing 21 counts of theft between 2006 and 2007 relating to the theft of some €30 million from financial institutions concerning the taking out of multiple mortgages on properties. The trial is expected to take 12 to 14 weeks. In his application for judicial review of Judge Nolan’s decision, Mr Lynn claimed his defence to the charges was not ready because his free legal aid senior and junior counsel who had worked on the case for 10 months became unavailable last November and he had to acquire a new legal team. His new counsel and solicitor say they have not been in a position to review the 675,000 or so documents in the case in time for next Monday’s start date.

They needed an adjournment to enable the new legal team to complete a full review of all the materials and to get clarification from the Minister for Justice about payment for defence counsel to enable them to do their work fully, it was claimed.

His new lawyers said they were simply stonewalled when queries on proper payment for the case were raised with the Minister and it was impossible for his new team to ensure a fair trial without being fully ready. His application for judicial review of the adjournment refusal was against the DPP and the Judges of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. The DPP, on behalf of the respondents, said his application was without merit and had been fully dealt with by the trial judge who has managed the case since 2018. It was not a complicated and extensive case as claimed by Mr Lynn but a relatively simple fraud case, the DPP said.

In his decision, Mr Justice Meenan said Mr Lynn had discharged two sets of legal teams prior to the last team withdrawing last November. Senior and junior counsel for the third and previous team said their withdrawal was due to unavailability. The judge said there had been a number of trial dates set for the hearing of the trial, the first two of which were adjourned due to the pandemic.

Voluminous documentation

By July last, Mr Lynn's previous legal team sought to have a trial in October last but, due to its length, the earliest it could be accommodated was January of this year. On December 16th, the new legal team applied to Judge Nolan for an adjournment due to the voluminous documentation involved and because of the issue over remuneration from the State for their work. This was refused but a shorter two-week adjournment was granted. A further adjournment application was made by them on January 21st which was again refused by Judge Nolan.

The judicial review application was brought on Monday and Mr Justice Meenan agreed to hear it on Wednesday. Mr Justice Meenan said he was satisfied Judge Nolan had considered all the issues raised in the judicial review and there was no legal infirmity in the decision he made. The judge noted there was a lack of detail for the reasons for the departure of the previous legal team who had been there for 10 months. He said it may well be the case that when detail is provided “a very different picture than suggested to this court” will emerge. It can often be the case that a change in legal teams is used as a reason for seeking an adjournment but previous case law has rejected it, he said. In relation to remuneration for Mr Lynn’s lawyers, that was not a matter for the DPP and he noted the previous legal team did not have an issue with this.

An application by Mr Lynn’s counsel, Feargal Kavanagh SC, for reporting restrictions in view of the proximity of the trial, which will be before a jury, was also rejected by Mr Justice Meenan.