McGuinness's (Deborah) Application (No 3) v The Sentence Review Commissioners
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 01 August 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] NIQB 76 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 01 August 2019 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2019] NIQB 76
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11029
Delivered: 01/08/19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW) DIVISIONAL COURT
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY DEBORAH McGUINNESS
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (No 3)
-v-
THE SENTENCE REVIEW COMMISSIONERS
________
Before: McCloskey J and Keegan J
________
McCLOSKEY J (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] This is the decision of the panel, to which both members have contributed, on
the question of whether these proceedings are to be characterised a criminal cause or
matter. This follows an expedited hearing on 22 July 2019, in keeping with the
expedited track to which this case has been assigned from its inception.
[2] This decision has considerable implications for onward appeal rights: see
section 41 of and Schedule 1 to the Judicature (NI) Act 1978. In short, if this is not a
criminal cause or matter adjudication will be undertaken by a single judge of the
Queen’s Bench Division (subject to [42] infra) in accordance with section 16(5) of the
Judicature (NI) Act 1978 with an ensuing right of appeal without leave to the Court
of Appeal and the possibility of an onward appeal to the Supreme Court. On the
other hand, if this is deemed a criminal cause or matter, adjudication will be by a
bench of two or more judges and the only avenue for further recourse will be an
appeal to the Supreme Court which would be dependent, crucially, on the
certification by this court of a point of law of general public importance, which
2
certification would unlock the door to the second pre-requisite namely the grant of
leave to appeal by either this court or the Supreme Court.
[3] The history of these proceedings can be gleaned from the court’s several
orders to date. In short, the case is advancing on an expedited and so-called “rolled
up” track and the court continues to wrestle with certain challenging case
management issues. There have been four listings to date, the most recent whereof
(on 22 July 2019) was devoted to the parties’ arguments on the criminal cause or
matter issue and certain case management issues.
The Challenge
[4] The three protagonists are:
(i) Deborah McGuinness (“the Applicant”), who is the surviving sister of
one of the victims of murders perpetrated by Michael Stone in a
notorious attack on mourners at Milltown Cemetery, Belfast on 22
March 1988.
(ii) The Sentence Review Commissioners (“the Commissioners”), a public
authority established by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
(iii) Michael Stone (hereinafter “the prisoner/Mr Stone”), a convicted
murderer of some notoriety sentenced to life imprisonment in 1988 for
the aforementioned murders and certain related offences and whose
victims include the brother of the Applicant, Thomas McErlean
deceased (“the deceased”) and an active participant in these
proceedings.
Other agencies to be noted are the Parole Commissioners, a public authority
established by the Life Sentences (NI) Order 2001, The Department of Justice (the
“Department”) which has significant functions and responsibilities under the last
mentioned measure and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (the “Secretary of
State”) who previously exercised important functions and responsibilities relating to
life prisoners, has a relevant rule making function and is the respondent in the
ongoing forum of the Commissioners.
[5] The essence of the Applicant’s challenge can be gleaned from the Order 53
Statement, as amended:
3
“3.1 The Applicant seeks to challenge three decisions
related to the consideration of the inmate, Michael Stone
…., for early release:
3.2 The decision of the Sentence Review Commissioners
to accept the application made by the prisoner for early
release ….
3.3 The decision of the single Commissioner …. to
direct that the application …. be the subject of a
preliminary indication by a panel of Sentence Review
Commissioners.
3.4 The decision of the Sentence Review Commissioners
to not provide information about the proceedings before
them and the decisions made in relation to the application
of the prisoner for early release to the Applicant.”
[6] Shortly following the initiation of these proceedings, Mr Stone’s case in the
forum of the Commissioners progressed to the stage of a formal determination,
dated 25 June 2019, in the form of a “preliminary indication”. This records that the
prisoner had applied to the Commissioners under Section 3 of the Northern Ireland
(Sentences) Act 1998 for a declaration that he is eligible for release in accordance
with the provisions of that Act. It is stated that his application, together with the
response papers provided on behalf of the Secretary of State, have been considered.
The Commissioners’ preliminary indication is in these terms:
“On the basis of the available documentary information,
the Commissioners hereby indicated that they are minded
to make a substantive determination to the effect that the
application in respect of the [specified] sentences should be
refused ….”
The offences are then detailed in a list. All of the convictions were made on 03
March 1989 and they consist of six counts of murder, five of attempted murder, three
of conspiracy to murder, six of wounding with intent, one of doing an act with intent
to cause an explosion, two of causing an explosion with intent, nine of possessing
firearms and ammunition with intent and three of possessing explosives with intent.
The six counts of murder were punished by a sentence of life imprisonment. The
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Quinn's (Dermot) Application v Criminal Cases Review Commission
...in two recent decisions of the High Court, namely Re McGuinness’ Application (No 1) [2019] NIQB 10 and Re McGuinness’ Application (No 2) [2019] NIQB 76. In the first of these cases the decision impugned was that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (the “Secretary of State”) refer......
-
Pearce's (Thomas) Application v Department of Justice
...in two recent decisions of the High Court, namely Re McGuinness’ Application (No 1) [2019] NIQB 10 and Re McGuinness’ Application (No 2) [2019] NIQB 76. In the first of these cases the decision impugned was that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (the “Secretary of State”) refer......