bail refused Man charged with murder of gangster Robbie Lawlor fails in bid to be released from custody

One of the men charged with the murder of crime boss Robbie Lawlor failed today in a new legal bid to be released from custody.

Patrick Teer (46) was refused bail again at the High Court amid claims that he took part in events surrounding the Irish gangster’s killing.

Lawlor (36) was shot dead outside a house in the Ardoyne area of north Belfast on April 4, 2020.

A gunman emerged from the property at Etna Drive and opened fire in broad daylight.

The murder is believed to be connected to a drugs dispute among organised crime gangs with connections to Drogheda, Dublin, Sligo and outside Ireland.

Four deaths and a series of other gun and bomb attacks have been linked to the feud.

Neither Mr Teer, of Thornberry Hill in Belfast, nor co-accused Adrian Holland (38) from Etna Drive, are suspected of shooting Lawlor.

Instead, they have both been charged with murder as part of a joint enterprise, based on their alleged involvement in the wider plot.

According to the prosecution, the plan to lure Lawlor to his death was devised nearly three weeks earlier.

Mr Holland allegedly travelled to Sligo and spoke to an unnamed international drug dealer at a hotel on March 16.

It was claimed that Mr Teer paid for his trip.

More than 20 suspects have been identified in the ongoing police investigation into the murder.

A previous court heard they include two women stopped near Portlaoise, Co Laois with cash which was alleged payment for the contract killing.

Mr Teer’s legal team mounted a further application for bail based on delays in progressing to a trial.

Defence barrister Sean Devine argued that his client has spent more than 13 months in custody on a prosecution case he described as “highly tenuous”.

But a Crown lawyer insisted the evidence against Mr Teer was more than just his association with Mr Holland.

She also confirmed that a preliminary enquiry hearing has been listed for March 25.

Denying bail, Mr Justice O’Hara ruled that no change of circumstances had been established.

“Progress of the case, although slower than Mr Teer and others would have wished, has not been excessively delayed,” he said.