One of Conor McGregor's former top Irish security personnel - who was jailed for a serious attack that left his victim out of work for six months - has launched a bid to overturn his conviction, arguing that the jury had no evidence about the functionality of a machine used to extract DNA from blood found at that scene.
Security provider Gezim Idrzi (38) of Luttrellstown Heights, Castleknock, Dublin, was found guilty last February by a jury of one count of assault causing harm but was acquitted on one count of false imprisonment of a man at GZ Security, Rosemount Business Park, Ballycoolin, Dublin 11, on February 1, 2016.
When passing sentence at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in February Judge Patricia Ryan said it was "a very serious assault with three people involved".
READ MORE: One of Conor McGregor’s bodyguards jailed for assault that left man unable to work for six months
Judge Ryan said the aggravating factors were the injuries sustained by the injured party, the effect the assault had on the injured party and that the assault was a "prolonged" one in which the man was bound.
Judge Ryan sentenced him to three years and nine months and suspended the final six months for two years. Idrizi had pleaded not guilty to both charges.
We exclusively revealed in 2018 that Idrzi worked as McGregor's body guard and was facing trial for the assault.
Idrzi has been pictured working as McGregor's bodyguard on numerous occasions including at the MMA star’s red carpet premiere of his documentary movie ‘Notorious’ at Dublin’s The Savoy cinema in November 2017.
Idrzi also provided security for the MMA fighter when he appeared before Dublin District Court in 2018 for non production of an insurance certificate and his licence. Those summons were struck out after McGregor produced his documents in court.
Idrzi was also photographed as the MMA fighter’s bodyguard while McGregor and his fiancee Dee Devlin attended the Longitude music festival in Dublin 2019.
At the trial, Garda Stuart Gleeson told Eoghan Cole, BL, prosecuting, that the injured party had gone to the business premises on the day in question hoping to sell a payment system to Idrzi. Both men were known to each other and had done business in the past. Idrizi met the man, but he did not wish to go ahead with the business offer. The injured man left and went to his next appointment.
Gda Gleeson said the man received a call later that day from Idrizi and asked him to return to the business premises under the promise of doing business. The injured man returned, arriving at the premises at 2pm and went into a ground-floor office with Idrzi.
The court heard that another man came into the office, and Idrzi accused the man of defrauding him in the past. The man was then punched in the face by the accused. The man said he was in shock and continued to be hit with a closed fist many more times. His hands were held behind his back by the second man.
Gda Gleeson said that the injured man was bound with tape, placed on a chair and had a towel put over his head. The injured man was in and out of consciousness and believed that a third man also came into the office during this time.
When the towel was removed, Idrzi asked him if he was ok to drive and told him “not to contact the gardaí or he would be killed”. The injured man left and drove home and contacted gardaí, who came to his home. The gardaí took a statement and called an ambulance, and the injured man was brought to hospital for fracture and laceration wounds.
The court heard that a search warrant was issued, and gardai searched the GZ Security premises, where blood stains were found on the floor of the office. The accused was also present in the office and was arrested and brought for interview. Idirzi denied all wrongdoing and assaulting the man.
The defence submitted in their appeal that there had been no evidence before the trial court relating to a machine that extracted the DNA from the blood regarding its functionality, nor had procedural checks or balances relating to the use of the machine been put before the court.
At the Court of Appeal, defence counsel Michael Bowman SC further submitted that Ms Sarah Fleming of Forensic Science Ireland interpreted the results that came from the machine but was not in a position to give evidence as to what the machine did with the samples provided to it. Counsel argued that the DNA evidence should not have been put before the jury.
Eoghan Cole BL, for the State, said that on the basis of the samples being lawfully obtained and transmitted to the laboratory, any issue in respect of what happened within the laboratory was a matter of weight as opposed to admissibility. Counsel further submitted that it had never been put to Ms Fleming at trial that the machine was not in working order.
Mr Bowman said it was a matter for the prosecution to prove each element of its case, which included calling evidence in respect of the functionality and operation of the machine.
Counsel said the trial judge erred in allowing the DNA evidence into the trial, leaving it as a matter of weight for the jury, as opposed to ruling it inadmissible.
Mr Bowman said the trial judge also neglected to charge the jury at all in respect of the weight to be attached to the evidence of Ms Fleming in her expert opinion evidence.
Mr Bowman said there had been "no evidence given of what the machine or robot" does and what level of interaction with human operatives is required - the process is not understood".
Mr Bowman said that DNA "looms large in the case" and the trial judge failed to warn the jury that "DNA is not infallible" and failed to explain the role of an expert giving opinion evidence on DNA "central to the case". Mr Bowman said it had been an "oversight" by all parties not to put a requisition to the judge to warn the jury of the DNA evidence.
Mr Cole said a "minuscule amount" of blood had been taken from the scene and that both men had admitted to being present at the scene. Mr Cole said that at the trial "it was never suggested that the analysis was wrong or that Ms Fleming was wrong in her conclusions".
Counsel said the trial judge had given a short charge to the jury which was "perfectly fair and well-balanced". Mr Cole said the trial judge had "specifically told the jury they were free to accept or reject all evidence in the case".
Counsel said there was no mandatory need to give a warning on DNA processes in the case unless it was raised as an issue at the trial, which had not been the case. "If you don't raise it then it's not an issue," said Mr Cole.
Mr Cole said the machines that extracted the DNA had been "approved, accredited and there were checks, balances and measures in place".
Mr Justice John Edwards said the court would reserve its judgement in the matter.
