The Court of Appeal has upheld the refusal of bail to Michael Andrecut and David Amah, who are charged with murdering Tristan Sherry, finding that the risk they would flee to avoid trial could not be managed with bail conditions.
In a linked appeal judgment delivered on 7 May 2024, the court also said the evidence did not meet the legal threshold for refusing bail to the third applicant, identified as N.M., under section 2 of the Bail Act 1997. It was prepared to consider his release on stringent conditions, while noting that concerns remained about possible revenge-related criminality and flight. The judgment does not record a final bail order for N.M.
The charges arise from an incident at Browne’s Steakhouse in Blanchardstown on Christmas Eve 2023. Two gunmen entered the restaurant and opened fire on Jason Hennessy Snr. One gunman, Sherry, was brought to the ground and disarmed. The court said CCTV showed the three applicants later taking part in serious violence against him. A pathologist attributed Sherry’s death to blunt force trauma to the head.
The High Court had refused bail to Andrecut and Amah on both statutory grounds and the traditional O’Callaghan grounds, which concern risks including failure to attend trial. It refused bail to N.M. under section 2 alone. The Gardaí had argued that the applicants might commit further serious offences in revenge for Hennessy Snr.’s death, including against the second gunman, who remained at large. They also raised flight concerns, including a passport found in a bag in Andrecut’s house and Amah’s lack of fixed living arrangements.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the violence shown on CCTV raised concerns about possible future offending. But it said the footage did not establish that the applicants’ actions were driven by a desire for revenge, and that a spontaneous outbreak of violence did not support an inference that they would plan and prepare to murder. Those concerns fell short of making detention reasonably necessary under section 2, though they would require stringent conditions if bail were considered.
The court reached a different conclusion on flight risk for Andrecut and Amah. It said the strength of the prosecution case, the seriousness of the charges and the potential life sentences created a strong temptation to flee. It upheld the High Court’s assessment of the passport evidence in Andrecut’s case and noted both men had links to other countries. The court concluded that rigorous conditions would not effectively address the flight risk, and upheld their detention on O’Callaghan grounds. The judgment does not state that either man was convicted.