Nama trial: Ex-Sinn Fein worker says he was Jamie Bryson go-between
The case centres on a meeting of the Finance Committee on 23 September 2015, at which Mr Bryson gave evidence about how Northern Ireland property loans were handled by the National Asset Management Agency, known as Nama.The prosecution say the procedural rules of the committee were subverted.It is alleged that a series of direct messages exchanged on Twitter before the meeting were evidence of a conspiracy.Mr Bryson has admitted sending a series of private messages to the accounts of Mr McKay and Mr O'Hara but insisted he did not break any laws.
'Daithí McKay asked me for a favour'
Mr O'Hara, who gave evidence for the first time to the court on Tuesday, insisted he was simply a conduit between Mr McKay and Mr Bryson, copying and pasting messages from one to the other."I just done what I was asked," he told the court."He (Mr McKay) said to me: 'Don't worry about it, it's nothing that serious, it's nothing criminal.'"
Mr O'Hara, 40, from Lisnahunshin Road, Cullybackey, is a self-employed plasterer who lives with his mother. He told the court he has dyslexia and left school at 16 with no qualifications.He joined Sinn Féin in 2006 and said he had helped Mr McKay when he was an MLA by working in his constituency, canvassing and putting up election posters.In 2015, he said Mr McKay rang him and asked for a "favour", copying and pasting messages to and from Jamie Bryson.The court was told that private messages on Twitter had previously been directly exchanged between Mr Bryson and Mr McKay, but then Mr O'Hara became involved.
'I think he used me'
It is alleged that Mr McKay told Mr Bryson to follow Mr O'Hara's Twitter account and they then exchanged a series of detailed messages before the committee meeting on 23 September 2015.The court was told these included suggestions on how to present evidence.Mr O'Hara was asked if he wrote the messages.He replied: "No, I didn't. Daithí McKay did."He was asked if he was worried that what he was doing was criminal."No, because he reassured me it wasn't," said Mr O'Hara.He insisted he did not understand the messages he was passing on as they had "too many big words".
Asked if he still regarded Mr McKay as one of his friends, he said: "No, I do not. I think he used me."Mr O'Hara denies a charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.The court was told by a psychologist who assessed Mr O'Hara that he has an extremely low IQ and a reading age of eight.In the view of the psychologist, it was "very unlikely" that Mr O'Hara composed the messages sent from his account to Mr Bryson.
All evidence now heard
The non-jury trial, in front of Judge Gordon Kerr KC, began last month.Mr Bryson, 35, from Rosepark, Donaghadee denies a charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.Mr McKay, 43, from Loughan Road, Dunnamanagh, denies actual misconduct.At the committee meeting in 2015, Mr Bryson made an allegation about the then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Peter Robinson, which was later denied and described by the politician as "scurrilous".The prosecution say Mr Bryson and Mr McKay were involved in an attempt to undermine the rules of the committee, in order to cause "considerable political embarrassment" to a number of people including Mr Robinson.Earlier in the trial, when Mr Bryson gave evidence, he said he was not aware that Mr O'Hara had been acting as an alleged "back channel" to Mr McKay.
After Mr O'Hara had been cross-examined, the court was told Mr McKay would not be giving evidence.All evidence in the trial has now been heard and the case has been re-listed for final submissions on Monday afternoon.Judge Kerr said he hopes to give his judgement by the end of June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
The Epping ‘protests' make me ashamed to admit I'm from Essex
I spent a long time being too embarrassed to admit I was from Essex. When I went to university, I used to tell people I was from 'north-east London', rather than admit to the county of my birth. It feels silly to admit it, now, but I felt distinctly haunted by the typical 'Essex girl' tropes, even at 18. When I met my then-boyfriend's family in Bristol, I still remember that the first thing his dad said was to tease me by asking if I'd driven down the M4 in a clapped out Ford Fiesta. White stilettos, orange fake tan and reality TV show The Only Way Is Essex (or 'TOWIE', to those in the know – and of course I went to school with half of the cast); we've long been the butt of the nation's jokes, both on and off screen. Our unofficial royals are Gemma Collins and Joey Essex. Need I say more? Thankfully, I grew out of that childish shame that leads you to reject where you come from – when people ask me where I'm from, I say 'Essex' again. Except that right now, I'm seriously considering going back in the closet. That's because when I woke to news that 'protests' had broken out in Epping – the place I used to go 'out out' as a teen, the place I still meet old schoolfriends in for lunch, the place my relatives still live in – I felt deeply, deeply ashamed. Even more so when footage showed hordes of people clashing with police outside a hotel believed to be housing asylum seekers. Essex Police said missiles were thrown at officers and the hotel, police vans and vehicles smashed, the high street brought to a standstill and one officer injured, while eight officers in total were assaulted – in what the force described as 'extreme hostility from a large number of individuals'. Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Hooper described it as 'selfish criminal behaviour' perpetuated by 'a mindless minority who don't give a damn about the hardworking, good people of Epping'. He added: 'Help us get them, because the people of Essex are proud people and these streets are ours.' He's right. To my mind, these 'protests' showcase the very worst of Essex. The worst of Britain, full-stop. Depressingly, it's not even an isolated incident. The first pathetic 'protest' was reportedly planned in advance and took place on Sunday night, followed by further disruption on Thursday. The excuse? A 38-year-old resident there was accused, last week, of sexual assault. Now, I have no idea about the alleged sexual assault case involving Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, who appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court earlier in the day. I don't know the details, or the outcome. Neither do these 'protesters'. But what I do know is that their behaviour helps no-one – least of all the alleged victim. And what almost amuses me (except that it's... not funny) is that I wrote only yesterday about the number of sexual assaults and incidents of harassment myself and my friends have experienced on the Tube – from being followed by 'burping, farting men' to catcalls, groping and obscene gestures. But what if I also repeat the sad fact that in almost every incident of male to female violence on public transport, not a single person steps in to help us – or to report it happening? How do people explain themselves for this utter failure to call out harassment when it's actually happening right in front of them – to anyone, by anyone? I took an unsavoury trawl through a local Facebook group, to see how people were reacting to the protests, but the ignorance was shocking. Some attempted to excuse the behaviour in the name of 'protecting kids'; while many blamed the government. Thankfully, there were also voices pointing out that thuggery isn't welcome in the area. 'So people not from Epping have gone to Epping to cause trouble', one said. Another called it 'disgusting, attacking the police' – and one long-term resident said this is 'not the Epping l used to know and come from – this is NOT a protest, it's DISGRACEFUL behaviour.' Hear, hear. This is not the Essex I know, believe in – or want to be associated with. If anyone asks, I'm from north-east London, again...
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Diane Abbott may not be right – but is she entirely wrong on race?
Diane Abbott has been suspended by the Labour Party… again. They have said that they're taking 'incredibly seriously' an interview she gave to James Naughtie's Reflections programme on BBC Radio 4 conducted back in May, but only aired yesterday. During the interview, the veteran Labour MP said she did not look back with regret on comments she previously made in 2023 in a letter to The Observer, in which she was seen to be downplaying the discrimination received by groups such as the Jewish, Irish and Traveller Communities, by comparing it to that experienced by Black and Brown people. She had written that what they suffer from is 'prejudice' – which although similar to racism, isn't the same – and said that people use the two words as though they are interchangeable. After the outrage, she apologised for any anguish caused by her remarks and claimed that her letter had been a 'first draft' and a mistake. She was ordered to undergo an online two hour e-training module which was apparently a two-hour antisemitism awareness course. Her comments concerning the Irish and Traveller communities were not addressed. I suspect Abbott had been rather keen to clarify the comments in the Naughtie interview and didn't anticipate this reaction from Labour HQ. She has posted the excerpt from the interview that is causing all of the controversy to her X account in which she can be heard saying: 'Clearly there must be a difference between racism which is about colour, and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street. You don't know… but if you see a Black person walking down the street, you see straightaway that they're Black. They are different types of racism.' She added: 'I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism.' This is a salient point. There's clearly a marked difference in how a Black person or person of colour suffers racism compared to someone who is 'white passing'. When there were riots in Southport last year, racist thugs didn't double-check the identity of the Black or Brown people they were attacking – they worked solely on the basis of skin colour. Naughtie pressed further, saying the effect is 'the same if you are, going to a synagogue on a Saturday morning and you have to have guards outside because some people might come along and want to insult you or even throw things at you'. 'That's pretty much the same as the kind of thing you describe in your book is happening to you as a Black person,' he said. 'The fact is one is a person of colour and one isn't, is neither here nor there. If you suffered it, it's still damaging.' Abbott replied: 'It is here, because you can spot that person of colour from hundreds of yards away. That is what is different.' I understand what she means – but I see why the second point she made could be construed as dismissive. The fact is, if you go to the synagogue on Shabbat and are Jewish – and have white skin – that is not going to protect you from any antisemitic attack. We've not been able to have a grown-up conversation around race in the UK for quite some time now. For me personally, I felt a significant shift around the time of the Brexit vote, Trump's first victory across the pond and Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour Party. This is when, instead of being able to simply speak about my own lived experiences, I was being called upon to compare them to others – forced to participate in some sort of 'oppression Olympics' which I hadn't trained or signed up for. I've always believed that intersectionality is the way to best understand what other people are going through. You can draw on some of your own experiences, look at the similarities and listen when they explain the difference in order to be able to empathise. What Abbott is trying to highlight here, however clumsily, is assimilation. I know many people from Jewish families who have Anglicised names and this was a deliberate choice, but it's important to point out not all of us can do this successfully. Despite many people from the Caribbean community (which I am from) having Anglicised names, it makes no difference to the racism we face. In some cases, it only delays the inevitable. I've heard plenty of stories of our people turning up to a job interview and witnessing the palpable disappointment of the panel when they realise 'Jason Davies' is actually a Black man. I deliberated long and hard on what to name my son, and in the end, I decided to give him an unmistakeably African name so people knew what they were getting – and there would be no surprises. My friend Iain decided to give his daughter an Anglicised name so that she could at least get her foot in the door, knowing that sometimes CVs and applications are thrown away just because you have a Black-sounding name. This is how early we start to worry about these things. But my experience is also different in other ways. I don't have to sit listening to people crack racist jokes because they don't realise I'm Black – that is obvious to them – yet my Jewish friends have had to listen to tasteless Holocaust jokes, because no one realises they're Jewish. Racism is often doled out due to perception. Gary Lineker, for example, has discussed being racially abused as a child because of his dark skin, despite being white; yet Meghan Markle has spoken about not suffering the level of racism growing up as she does now because people didn't realise she was half Black. Orthodox Jews are identifiable from the religious attire they wear in the same way that some Muslims are (those who wear thobes or hijabs.) But in dire circumstances, such as threat to life, these things can be removed. In Islam there is something called Taqiyya (annoyingly misused on social media) which allows you to conceal your faith in times of danger and persecution. Black people can't do this. If only Stephen Lawrence or Anthony Walker had been able to run around a corner and remove their skin in order to save their lives. The GRT (Gypsy, Roma and Traveller) community may able to walk down the street as individuals and blend in to mainstream society in a way that I can't, but that doesn't negate the horrendous levels of discrimination they face within the education system, the legislative changes and even just trying to have a drink or a meal. They are refused service and suffer crude racism in a way Abbott confidently asserts doesn't happen as overtly to Black people anymore. She said, 'they may think the same thoughts, but they know it's not acceptable to express them.' To my mind, Starmer has either made a serious mistake here, or the disrespect he has repeatedly shown Abbott and the wider Black community since the start of his leadership is set to continue. His failure to address the findings in the Forde Report (which was commissioned to examine the level of anti-Black racism and Islamophobia in the party) resulted in many leaving the party altogether. Some found a home elsewhere, while other MPs disengaged with politics altogether. The blind loyalty afforded to the Labour Party over the years since the overtly racist 1964 Smethick campaign where the Tories used the slogan: 'If you want a n****r for a neighbour, vote Labour' no longer exists. Now, a new generation of voters – some of whom are going to be as young as 16 – are looking at how Starmer's Labour operates a hierarchy of racism; how he gave a speech on immigration that many compared to Enoch Powell and then stood by his comments that the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers'. Downing Street said Starmer 'completely rejected' suggestions he echoed Powell. In the words of Professor Gus John, if he didn't know what he was invoking, he is simply not fit to be prime minister. Racism manifests itself in different ways. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out. And unless we are able to have difficult conversations around the subject – which includes allowing people to make honest mistakes – we will never even come close to starting to resolve it. But maybe some people just don't want to.
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Britain is ‘not safe' and critically underprepared for war, warns former Nato chief
British people are 'not safe' and describing the country as underprepared for war is an 'understatement', a former Nato chief has warned parliament. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen gave a scathing assessment of the UK's readiness for war following a year examining defence policy for the government 's Strategic Defence Review, released early last month. 'Over the years, we have allowed our forces and our defences to become hollowed out,' the former Nato secretary general told the House of Lords today (18 July). 'When we say in the report that we are 'underprepared', it is an understatement. We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity [for] high intensity warfare.'
