King v Nigel Sydney Jamison
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy LJ |
| Judgment Date | 07 September 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NICA 51 |
| Date | 07 September 2023 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NICA 51
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: TRE12215
ICOS No: 91/6656/A01
Delivered: 07/09/2023
IN HIS MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
THE KING
v
NIGEL SYDNEY JAMISON
___________
Mr Greg Berry KC with Mr Joel Lindsay (instructed by Joseph Magee & Co Solicitors) for
the Appellant
Mr Samuel Magee KC with Mr Robin Steer (instructed by the PPS) for the Respondent
__________
Before: Keegan LCJ and Treacy LJ
___________
TREACY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] This is an application by the appellant whereby he appeals his conviction and
sentence in respect of two offences of withholding information, contrary to section
18(1)(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (“the 1989
Act”).
Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence
[2] Pursuant to section 25(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Appeal
(Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”) the appellant seeks leave to adduce the
following fresh evidence which was not adduced at the trial:
(i) The evidence as is contained in the affidavits of Nigel Jamison, Paul King,
William Dalton Watty and Eleanor Jamison.
(ii) Leave to receive the said evidence at (i) above which is currently in affidavit
form by way of oral testimony from Nigel Jamison, Paul King, William Dalton
Watty and Eleanor Jamison;
2
(iii) That the said Nigel Jamison, Paul King, William Dalton Watty and
Eleanor Jamison attend and be examined before the court pursuant to section
25(1)(b) of the 1980 Act.
[3] None of the evidence sought to be adduced was given at his trial. He entered
a plea of guilty and did not challenge the prosecution evidence.
Grounds upon which the applicant relies
[4] Insofar as the grounds set out in section 25(2) are concerned Mr Berry KC
submitted:
(a) Whether the evidence appears to the court to be capable of belief - The
affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant are detailed and Mr Jamison’s
account on some aspects is supported by those of Mr King, Mr Watty and
Mrs Jamison. The appellant submits that the evidence he puts forward is
capable of belief and the court should afford him the opportunity to give oral
testimony so that his demeanour etc can be properly assessed.
(b) Whether it appears to the court that the evidence may afford any ground for
allowing the appeal – Respectfully this has been succinctly dealt with by
Mr Justice Scoffield at para [24] of the leave judgment where he stated:
“I am prepared however to exercise my residual
discretion to extend time to allow the applicant the
opportunity to pursue his appeal since, if his account is
correct and were to be accepted by the Crown, the merits
are such that it would probably succeed.
It has to be acknowledged that the Crown do not appear
to accept the account put forward by the appellant
however, if this court were to accept his account it is
submitted that his appeal would succeed.”
(c) Whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from
which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of an appeal – Again,
it is submitted that the answer to this is ‘yes.’ If the appellant had given
evidence consistent with his affidavit at his original trial and it had been
accepted, then it is difficult to see how he would have been convicted of the
offences which he now seeks to appeal.
(d) Whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the
evidence in those proceedings – Again, the leave judgment of Mr Justice
Scoffield at para [18] succinctly encapsulates this aspect:
To continue reading
Request your trial