Director of Public Prosecutions v McConville (Brendan), Wootton (John Paul) and Wootton (Sharon)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | District Judge (MC) White |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] NIMag 1 |
| Date | 03 January 2011 |
| Court | Magistrates' Court (Northern Ireland) |
Neutral Citation No. [2011] NIMag 1
Ref:
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
03/01/11
(subject to editorial corrections)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Complainant
And
Brendan McConville
John Paul Wootton
Sharon Wootton
Defendants
Ruling
District Judge (MC) White
1. The defendants are charged with a total of eight offences, which can be
grouped into four categories, as follows:-
(i) Brendan McConville and John Paul Wootton are charged with the
murder of Constable Stephen Carroll on 9 March 2009, and with
possession of a rifle and ammunition with intent on the same date
(charges 1 and 2);
(ii) Brendan McConville is charged with four offences of possession of
explosive substances between 11 October 2006 and 11 October 2007
(charges 3-6);
(iii) John Paul Wootton is charged with one offence of attempting to
collect information likely to be useful to terrorists between 10
January 2009 and 10 March 2009 (charge 7);
(iv) Sharon Wootton is charged with one offence of doing acts with
intent to pervert the course of public justice between 8 March 2009
and 20 October 2009 (charge 8).
2. The prosecution has requested the court to conduct a preliminary inquiry
under Articles 31-34 of the Magistrates’ Courts (NI) Order 1981, and has
furnished papers to the court and served them on the accused in accordance with
those provisions. In response, the accused have exercised their right under
Article 34(2) of the Order to require fifteen prosecution witnesses to attend the
committal proceedings and give evidence on oath.
3. The prosecution then lodged a number of applications with the court in regard
to some of those witnesses. This ruling relates to those applications, a number of
which were opposed by the accused, and which were heard on 13 December
2010.
4. The applications are as follows:-
(i) two applications under section 87 of the Coroners and Justice Act
2009 for witness anonymity orders. The first application requests
that a total of three prosecution witnesses, referred to in the papers
as Pin 8625, Witness K, and Witness J, be permitted to be referred to
by those titles when giving evidence. It includes requests that, in
order to preserve the anonymity of the witnesses, their names are
withheld from the accused and their legal representatives, they are
not asked questions which might lead to their identification and
they are screened, when giving evidence, from everyone except the
Judge, the prosecution and the legally qualified representatives of
the accused;
(ii) the second application is a similar request that a total of five
prosecution witnesses, referred to in the papers as Witnesses F, H,
M, B and E be permitted to be referred to by those letters when
giving evidence. The same additional requests are made, with the
addition of a request that the witnesses’ voices are subject to
modulation consistent with protecting the witnesses’ identities;
(iii) two applications under Article 18 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence)
(NI) Order to admit, as hearsay, evidence in support of the
applications for anonymity. The evidence consists of statements
from the witnesses requesting anonymity, two Public Interest
Immunity Certificates and some supporting evidence. These
applications are made in accordance with Practice Direction
4/2010;
(iv) an application under Article 7 of the Criminal Evidence (NI) Order
2004 for a special measures direction in respect of witnesses B and
E, in order that evidential video recordings are admitted as their
evidence-in-chief, and they are cross-examined by way of video
link;
(v) two further applications under Article 18 of the Criminal Justice
(Evidence) (NI) Order to admit, as hearsay, a large number of items
listed in the applications;
To continue reading
Request your trial