Queen v David Lyness
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy LJ |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICA 40 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 30 June 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICA 40
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: TRE11896
Delivered: 30/06/2022
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
THE QUEEN
v
DAVID LYNESS
___________
Neil Connor QC with Michael Chambers (instructed by the PPS) for the Prosecution
The Appellant appeared as Litigant in Person
___________
Before: Treacy LJ, Maguire LJ and Horner J
___________
TREACY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] The appellant appeals against his conviction. He was unanimously convicted
by a jury of murdering his girlfriend Anita Downey in the early hours of 20 January
2017. At the conclusion of the hearing before this court, we unanimously dismissed
the appeal and said we would give our reasons later which we now do.
Issues in the Case
[2] At the court’s direction the PPS filed a list of issues in this appeal which they
identified as follows:
“1. Will the appellant be permitted to raise issues in his
skeleton argument that don’t relate to the grounds
of appeal which he has lodged? In the event that
the court permits him to do so, we have treated the
issues raised in his skeleton argument as if they
were grounds of appeal and have responded to
them in our skeleton argument.
2
2. Will the appellant be permitted to refer to matters
that were not in evidence before the lower court?
The appellant has not made any application to
admit fresh evidence. Therefore, we respectfully
suggest that he ought not to be permitted to refer
to and rely upon material which was not in
evidence before the lower court.
3. How can the court deal with the allegations made
by the appellant against his former legal advisers
both in terms of the way in which they
represented him at trial and in their conduct
generally. Many of these matters were not in
evidence before the lower court. The appellant
has made these allegations in the form of a
skeleton argument and has not submitted a sworn
affidavit about these matters. He has refused to
permit his legal representatives to respond to his
allegations by refusing to waive his legal
professional privilege.
4. Whether any of the grounds of appeal are made
out?
5. If any of the grounds are made out, does this
affect the safety of the conviction?”
[3] The appellant has never offered any cogent explanation of how Mrs Downey
sustained a 15cm long knife wound to her neck, consistent with at least two separate
movements of the knife, which severed her jugular vein and which was inflicted
with such force that it penetrated and left a notch in her spine.
[4] We agree with the prosecution that both in this court and at trial in the Crown
Court, the appellant has attempted to frustrate and derail the trial process. He has
sought to drag the criminal process into chaos by engineering or inventing conflict
with his lawyers and then dismissing them. He appears to be seeking to make
himself unrepresentable by constantly changing instructions and making allegations
against his lawyers. He then uses this status as an attempt to frustrate the trial
process.
[5] This tactic has continued in the Court of Appeal where the appellant has
dismissed his counsel after repeatedly changing his instructions to them and then
makes spurious and invented allegations of impropriety against them.
3
[6] We agree the appellant will never be satisfied with any legal representatives
and would have continued in this vein had the court permitted him legal aid for a
further set of representatives.
Background
[7] The background has been extensively set out in the written arguments which
we summarise below.
[8] At the time of her murder Mrs Downey was 51 years of age. She had been in
a relationship with the appellant for approximately 3 years, although they resided in
two separate addresses. They became engaged in the year prior to her death and
appeared to have lived together at her home for a period.
[9] After the trial commenced on 17 June 2017, an amended defence statement
was served. In this statement it was claimed that Mrs Downey had planned to have
the appellant murdered on the night of her death. It was also claimed that the
appellant had been involved in a struggle with Mrs Downey for a handbag and he
had got a knife to cut the strap of the handbag. He claimed that the deceased had
then got the knife off him, attacked him with it and that the knife had never been in
his hand at all and somehow the deceased had cut her own throat in the course of
trying to attack the appellant.
[10] On Thursday 19 January 2017 the appellant and the deceased boarded the
train at Lurgan at around 5.10pm. They drank white wine on the train which they
had poured into plastic water bottles for the journey. They arrived at Great Victoria
Street Station at around 5.40pm and made their way to a restaurant at Franklin Street
where they consumed a bottle of white wine with cheese as part of an advertised
special offer. At around 8pm they made the short journey on foot to Brennan’s Bar
on Great Victoria Street where they purchased 3 bottles of beer.
[11] By this stage of the evening, the deceased was affected by drink and her
attempt to purchase further beer was refused by staff and led to them both leaving
the bar shortly thereafter. They returned to the train station in Belfast and boarded
the 8.40pm train to Lurgan, arriving at around 9.20pm.
[12] Much of their journey to and from Belfast was captured by various CCTV
cameras. The appellant and the deceased were picked up on William Street walking
towards Lurgan town centre at approximately 9.25pm. Within five minutes or
thereabouts they reached Church Place where they went their separate ways.
[13] The appellant obtained a taxi to his home at 8 Toberhewney Hall whilst the
deceased made her way to JP’s bar on Edward Street. Once there she ordered and
consumed two drinks. She conversed with other patrons at the bar before leaving by
taxi at around 10.30pm. She was described as being drunk but still able to walk.
To continue reading
Request your trial