Magee’s (Gerard) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Deeny J |
| Judgment Date | 07 April 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016 NICA 19 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 07 April 2016 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2016] NICA 19 Ref:
DEE9931
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
07/04/2016
(Subject to editorial corrections)
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY GERARD MAGEE
APPLICANT/APPELLANT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 133 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ACT 1988
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF 8 JANUARY 2014 TAKEN BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
Before Weir LJ, Deeny J and Keegan J
DEENY J (delivering the judgment of the court)
[1] This judgment deals with the appeal by Gerard Magee (the appellant) against
the judgment of Gillen LJ, [2014] NIQB 142, dismissing the appellant’s application to
quash the decision of the Department of Justice of 8 January 2014 refusing him
compensation pursuant to Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as amended)
because the reversal of his conviction was not on the ground of a new or newly
discovered fact. The application arises from events which commenced almost 30
years ago.
[2] Mr Desmond Hutton appeared for the appellant and Mr Peter Coll QC
appeared for the Department of Justice. Both counsel presented well researched and
thorough written and oral submissions to the court. Mr Hutton submitted at the
commencement of his 36 page written submission that the issues in the appeal were
narrow. We believe that is correct but the long history of the matter does require
some iteration.
2
[3] On 15 December 1988 the police discovered a large bomb hidden in a culvert
under a road near Antrim, apparently designed to be exploded when a military
patrol passed over. A number of persons were arrested in connection with the
incident, including the appellant, and 11 were charged with terrorist offences, of
whom 7 ultimately pleaded guilty.
[4] The appellant was taken to Castlereagh Police Office, the principal location
for interviewing terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland at that time. On his arrival
there on 16 December 1988 it is common case that he was asked if he wanted a
solicitor’s advice and that he said that he did. However, a senior police officer,
pursuant to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, authorised a 48
hour delay in the granting of access by the appellant to his solicitor. Before he saw
his solicitor on 18 December he was interviewed by two teams of detectives. On the
sixth interview on 17 December he made a number of verbal admissions in reply to
questions and in the seventh interview he made a written statement of admission i.e.
before seeing his solicitor.
[5] He was tried before Murray LJ on 21 December 1990, sitting without a jury.
The appellant sought to exclude his admissions and a lengthy voir dire followed in
which he made allegations of physical abuse of him by two of the interviewing
detectives. The trial judge rejected those allegations as untruthful, admitted the
admission evidence, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to a lengthy period
of imprisonment.
[6] The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland. We
have had the benefit of reading the long and careful judgment of this, the first of four
Courts of Appeal to consider the consequences of Mr Magee’s involvement in these
offences. That judgment was delivered by MacDermott LJ on 16 June 1993 and is of
some 30 pages. Mr Magee was represented at trial by senior and junior counsel who
challenged the admissibility of the statements on the basis of alleged ill-treatment of
Magee by one of the teams of interviewing detective constables. Magee gave
evidence at the trial on the voir dire but not on the substantive issue as to his guilt or
innocence.
[7] At pages 4 and 5 of his judgment MacDermott LJ sets out the visits which the
then accused had received while in custody, including that of Mr Eugene Todd,
solicitor, at 1pm on Sunday 18 December and the number of interviews conducted.
Therefore, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal were fully aware that the
prisoner had made admissions before he received the benefit of legal advice. The
Court of Appeal considered the evidence not only of Mr Magee but of two medical
practitioners who saw and examined him in custody. There was a marked
discrepancy between what Magee later claimed and what he said to the doctors at
the time. One is reminded in the course of reading this judgment that following the
report of the Bennett Committee there were by then cameras in interviewing rooms
which were supervised by uniformed inspectors. They gave evidence inconsistent
with Mr Magee’s contentions. His appeal was then dismissed as was that of certain
To continue reading
Request your trial