Queen v Clarke (Michael Patrick) and McStravick (Stephen Paul)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NICC 13 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 19 March 2010 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NICC 13 Ref:
McCL7806
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
19/03/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE CROWN COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
BELFAST CROWN COURT
________
THE QUEEN
–v-
MICHAEL PATRICK CLARKE and STEPHEN PAUL McSTRAVICK
________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The Defendants are jointly charged with the six offences specified in the Bill
of Indictment. These consist of one count of robbery, three counts of false
imprisonment and two counts of kidnapping. Collectively, the alleged offences
disclose a soi-disant “tiger kidnapping” scenario. In a reserved judgment delivered
on 1st February 2010, following the discharge of the jury, I ruled that, in the exercise
of the power contained in Section 46(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003
Act”), this trial should continue before me alone. Permission to appeal against this
ruling was granted. On 12th February 2010, the Court of Appeal dismissed the
appeal. Subsequently, permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.
Following some delay, brought about by reasons upon which I need not dilate, the
trial resumed and was eventually completed on 12th March 2010.
II THE INDICTMENT
[2] The Defendants are jointly charged with six offences, all alleged to have
occurred on 28th May 2008.
First Charge: It is alleged that both Defendants robbed Brinks Ireland
Limited of £85,000 in cash on 28th May 2008 at Duncrue Road, Belfast.
Second Charge: It is alleged that both Defendants falsely imprisoned JL on
28th May 2008 at the ‘L’ family home in County Down.
2
Third Charge: It is alleged that both Defendants kidnapped EL on 28th May
2008 at the same location.
Fourth Charge: It is alleged that both Defendants kidnapped ML on 28th May
2008 at the same location.
Fifth Charge: It is alleged that both Defendants falsely imprisoned EL on 28th
May 2008 at a house on the Ravenhill Road, Belfast.
Sixth Charge: It is alleged that both Defendants falsely imprisoned ML on
28th May 2008 at a house on the Ravenhill Road, Belfast.
[3] It is alleged by the prosecution that these offences were committed at three
separate locations, in the following sequence:
(a) The ‘L’ family home in County Down.
(b) A house on the Ravenhill Road, Belfast.
(c) Premises at Duncrue Road, Belfast.
As portrayed by the prosecution, these are interlinked locations, where certain inter-
related events occurred. In brief summary, in framing their case against both
Defendants, it is asserted by the prosecution that the entire operation was the work
of a well organized gang, of which the Defendants were members. It is said that the
Defendants participated in a joint enterprise. It is alleged that both Defendants
committed all six charges in pursuance of the central plan and purpose of this
criminal gang, whose other members are not before the court, which was to rob
Brinks Ireland of a large sum of money.
III THE EVIDENCE
[4] What follows in this section of the judgment is a summary of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution. The text of paragraphs [7] – [40] was distributed to all
counsel prior to the formulation of the parties’ final written submissions. This
résumé of the evidence had been prepared for the purpose of charging the jury.
Following the discharge of the jury and the ensuing decision under Section 46 of the
2003 Act, I determined to take this step mainly because in the no-jury environment
which had materialised there would not be an opportunity to submit requisitions to
me, thereby enabling material omissions or errors to be corrected. Following
distribution of the text, as aforesaid, the written submissions of the parties were
prepared and a final hearing was convened for the purpose of closing arguments.
At this stage, the parties acknowledged that paragraphs [7] – [40] (infra) were
accepted as an adequate and accurate digest of the evidence adduced at the trial.
3
[5] The evidence presented by the prosecution to the jury had a series of
components, which belonged to particular events and phases. There was also
scientific evidence and evidence of how both Defendants responded during
interviews by the police, after they had been arrested and cautioned. Furthermore,
the evidence included a substantial quantity of visual and auditory aids –
photographs, maps/plans, CCTV recordings and video recordings and in particular:
(a) Exhibit No. 36: A map depicting the route from the ‘L’ family home
through parts of County Down to the greater Belfast area.
(b) Exhibit No. 53: A map of a town/area in County Down – including the
home of the second Defendant.
(c) Exhibits Nos. 20 and 37: A mapping overview of various materials
locations throughout the greater Belfast area.
(d) Exhibits Nos. 23 and 40: One of the very large maps – depicting, inter
alia, a total of eighteen Spar retail outlets; a house on the Ravenhill
Road, Belfast; and the Anchor Lodge Filling Station and Spar on the
Ravenhill Road.
(e) Exhibit No. 38: Depicts various relevant locations on the Ravenhill
Road.
(f) Exhibit No. 35: Depicts the house on the Ravenhill Road.
(g) Exhibit No. 39: Depicts the Portside Bar and certain adjoining
buildings on the Duncrue Road, Belfast proximate to its location with
the Dargan Road – to include the car park area to the rear,
incorporating details of refuse bins and a salt bin.
(h) Exhibit No. 1: The ‘L’ household in Co. Down.
(i) Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5: The house on the Ravenhill Road, Belfast.
(j) Exhibits Nos. 13 and 16: “Video stills” of certain events and images at
the Anchor Lodge Filling Station and Spar, Ravenhill Road, Belfast on
28th May 2008.
(k) Exhibits Nos. 8 and 10: The burned out white Renault Traffic Van
[location - Iris Close, in West Belfast].
(l) Exhibit No. 6: The burned out red Volkswagen Golf [location - Ben
Eden Green, in North Belfast, not very far from the Duncrue Road
location mentioned above].
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Queen v Clarke (Michael Patrick) and McStravick (Stephen Paul) - Sentencing judgment
...by the prosecution which, during this phase of the proceedings, confined itself to highlighting the victim impact statement. 1 See [2010] NICC 13 2 See paragraphs [3] and [43] 3 See paragraph [90] 4 See paragraph [90] 2 [3] As the offences were committed after the commencement date of Artic......