The Court of Appeal has allowed Michael Lynn’s appeal against the refusal of bail, finding that stringent conditions could address a now much diminished risk that he would flee before trial on 21 theft charges.
The court said it would admit Mr Lynn to bail, subject to stringent conditions. It considered the conditions he had offered in the High Court, together with an independent surety of €100,000, broadly adequate. The surety must be provided so it is readily available to the authorities if needed. The court said frozen funds in a bank account would be appropriate and invited counsel to address any changes to the proposed conditions. The judgment did not set out final, amended bail terms.
The charges, pending before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, concern alleged wrongdoing in obtaining mortgages on residential properties in Dublin in 2006 and 2007. Mr Lynn was returned from Brazil on 1 March 2018 after Brazilian courts authorised his extradition on the theft allegations. He had been held in custody there from August 2013 and had spent four months in Irish custody by the time of the judgment.
The prosecution opposed bail on flight-risk grounds. It relied on the efforts required to return Mr Lynn to Ireland and Garda evidence that he might flee to avoid trial. The Court of Appeal accepted that there remained a flight risk, citing his departure from Ireland and his failure to complete previously arranged interviews with Gardaí in Portugal and Brazil. But it said the risk had diminished considerably: he had spent almost five years in custody, had returned to Ireland, had a wife and four young children, and any eventual sentence could take account of time already served.
The court also weighed the expected delay before trial. The trial was listed for 13 January 2020, about 18 months after the appeal. Mr Lynn argued that continued custody would be oppressive and could prejudice his defence. The court described the delay as disturbing and said it had to be considered alongside the presumption of innocence and the interests of justice.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s refusal of bail after finding Mr Lynn was a flight risk. The Court of Appeal held that the next question was whether conditions could manage that risk. It allowed the appeal on that basis; it did not determine the theft charges or make findings on the allegations.