King v Peter Granaghan
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Fowler J |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICC 32 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 20 November 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICC 32
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: FOW11986
Delivered: 20/11/2022
IN THE CROWN COURT OF NORTHERN IRELAND
SITTING AT BELFAST
__________
THE KING
v
PETER GRANAGHAN
__________
FOWLER J
Introduction
[1] The accused Peter Granaghan is charged with attempted murder, making and
possessing an improvised explosive device with intent to endanger life. This case
arises out of the planting of an under vehicle improvised explosive device
(“UVIED”) under the car of a serving police officer parked at the driveway of his
home in East Belfast on 1 June 2019. The indictment is framed as follow:-
Count 1 - That on a date unknown between 31 May 2019 and 2 June 2019 he
attempted to murder a serving member of the Police Service of Northern
Ireland, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy
(NI) Order 1983 and Common Law.
Count 2 - That on a date unknown between 1st June 2018 and 2nd June 2019 he
unlawfully and maliciously made a certain explosive substance, namely
an under vehicle improvised explosive device with intent by means
thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the UK or to
enable some other person to do so, contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the
Explosive Substances Act 1883.
Count 3 - That on a date unknown between 1st June 2018 and 2nd June 2019 he
unlawfully and maliciously had in his possession or under his control a
certain explosive substance, namely an under vehicle improvised
explosive device with intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause
serious injury to property in the UK or to enable some other person to do
so, contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
2
[2] The Director of Public Prosecutions certified pursuant to Section 1 of the
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 that the trial should be conducted
without a jury. I have heard oral evidence and read all agreed statements and facts
as a judge sitting alone and am required to give the verdict of the court together with
my written reasons.
[3] The defendant was arraigned on 12 May 2021 and pleaded not guilty to each
of the 3 counts on the bill of indictment.
[4] The prosecution case against Granaghan depends primarily on forensic DNA
and circumstantial evidence. The evidence the prosecution rely on includes:
(i) Presence of the defendant’s DNA on the UVIED.
(ii) The defendant’s espoused sympathies to a violent republican ideology.
(iii) The defendant’s association with known terrorists.
(iv) The defendant’s failure without good cause to mention facts which he could
reasonably have been expected to mention in interview with police and his
failure to give evidence in court.
[5] The prosecution has submitted that when all these circumstances are taken
together, they establish an overwhelming case against the defendant with the only
conclusion to be drawn from the evidence being that the defendant was in
possession of and involved with the device at a stage when it was being constructed
and committed the offences as alleged.
[6] The defence reject the prosecution’s assertions and have made the central
theme of their case the fact the prosecution cannot say whether the DNA profile on
the device was deposited by primary, secondary or tertiary transfer. That given the
moveable nature of the items the DNA profile was taken from the prosecution
cannot rule out the reasonable possibility that the DNA profile was deposited on the
wire in the UVIED before being placed into the device. That the prosecution faced
with an obvious insufficiency of and inherent weakness in the DNA evidence have
been compelled to resort to peripheral ‘association evidence’ and inferences to be
drawn from the defendant’s failure to answer questions in interview or give
evidence in court.
Legal Issues
[7] Before considering the evidence in this case, it is important when sitting as a
judge alone and at the outset of this judgment to remind myself of the relevant law
and the legal principles that I must apply when deciding whether the Crown has
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
The King v Paul Martin McKerr
...judge reminded himself of the circumstantial nature of this case. As such Mr Hutton rightly referred us to the case of R v McGranaghan [2022] NICC 32 and R v Carney [2015] NICA 27 where the law in this area is discussed. At para [98] of McGranaghan, Mr Justice Fowler sets out the need in ca......