King v Fionnghuale Perry
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | O'Hara J |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NICC 7 |
| Date | 15 March 2023 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NICC 7
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: OHA12096
ICOS No: 2019/083239
Delivered: 15/03/2023
IN THE CROWN COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
SITTING AT BELFAST
___________
THE KING
v
FIONNGHUALE PERRY
___________
Mr R Steer (instructed by the Public Prosecution Service) for the Crown
Mr D Hutton KC with Ms A Macauley (instructed by Phoenix Law, Solicitors) for the
Defendant
___________
O’HARA J
Introduction
[1] The defendant is charged with two offences:
(i) Collecting or making a record of information likely to be useful to a terrorist,
contrary to section 58(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000, in that on a date
unknown between 16 September 2015 and 21 February 2018, she collected or
made a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person
committing or preparing an act of terrorism, namely a security debrief ,
regarding the police recovery of firearms, ammunitions and explosives.
(ii) Collecting information likely to be of use to terrorists, contrary to section
58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, in that on 20 February 2018 she had in her
possession documents or records containing information of a kind likely to be
useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, namely a
security debrief regarding the police recovery of firearms, ammunition and
explosives.
[2] The second count is essentially an alternative charge if the first one is not
proved against her.
2
[3] The charges arise from a police search of the defendant’s home on
20 February 2018. During that search, the lawfulness of which is challenged, the
police found handwritten notes in a perfume box. The defendant accepts that the
handwriting is hers. On the prosecution case the notes, which are partially in code,
amount to a debriefing by dissident republicans of individuals who were
questioned, after a significant arms find, in September 2015 in the Ballymurphy area
of Belfast. That arms find led to a Kevin Nolan being sentenced in July 2017 to seven
years’ imprisonment for possession of the weapons.
[4] The prosecution case is that in these circumstances the defendant is guilty
because the notes provide practical assistance to any individual or organisation
involved in preparing or committing an act of terrorism.
[5] For the defendant it is contended that the notes are of no such use or value.
Instead, she says, that the notes which were found had been written by her only by
copying, word for word, notes which were left anonymously in her home in or about
December 2017. They made little or no sense to her at the time. In fact, on her case, it
was not until she was questioned by the police that their meaning or possible
meaning emerged. In any event, she says, she can rely on the section 58(3) defence
of reasonable excuse in that she has a record of writing stories and information
pieces to warn people about what she claims are the sinister and/or unlawful
activities of the security services. Her case is that this explains why the notes were
left in her home in the first place and why she kept them.
[6] The defendant contends that having raised a section 58(3) defence, the onus
passes to the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. She contends that
the prosecution has not done that and cannot do that. In this context there is a
further issue about what inferences, if any, I should draw against the defendant from
the fact that she did not give any explanation for the notes or raise any defence
during her police interviews which were almost entirely “no comment” interviews.
[7] I am grateful to counsel for their helpful oral and written submissions in this
case. I am also grateful to them for agreeing various facts, a step which succeeded in
reducing the length of the trial. At the end of the prosecution case, Mr Hutton,
applied for the evidence of the notes, which were found during the search, to be
excluded and for a direction that there was no case for the defendant to answer. I
refused both applications. The issues which were raised then remain to be dealt
with in this judgment.
Terrorism Act 2000
[8] Section 58 as originally enacted was in the following terms:
“(1) A person commits an offence if—
To continue reading
Request your trial