Queen v John Murphy
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NICA 16 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 23 February 2021 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NICA 16
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11413
ICOS No:
Delivered: 23/02/2021
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
THE QUEEN
v
JOHN MURPHY
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, McCloskey LJ and McAlinden J
________
McCloskey LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Preface
This appeal against conviction arises out of a Diplock trial and, thus, does not
require the leave of this court.
Introduction
[1] On 31 July 2020 at Belfast Crown Court following a non-jury trial John
Thomas Murphy (“the appellant”), aged 33, was convicted of the following offences,
all alleged to have occurred on 11 June 2017.
(a) Possession of ammunition without a certificate, contrary to Article 3(2) of the
Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (the “2004 Order”).
(b) Possession of ammunition in suspicious circumstances, contrary to Article
64(1) of the 2004 Order.
(c) Possession of an imitation firearm with intent by that means to cause any
person to believe that unlawful violence would be used against him or
another person, contrary to Article 58(2) (a) of the 2004 Order.
[The second, third and fourth counts of the indictment]
2
The appellant was acquitted of one further count (the first in sequence), namely
possession of a quantity of ammunition with intent by that means to endanger life or
cause serious damage to property or to enable another person to endanger life or
cause serious damage to property, contrary to Article 58 (1) (a) and (b) of the 2004
Order. In our description of the first and fourth counts of the indictment we have
intentionally employed the precise statutory language, for reasons which will
become apparent.
[2] By this appeal the appellant challenges all three convictions. On
11 November 2020 he was sentenced to a commensurate term of three and a
halfyears imprisonment, being the aggregate of three concurrent sentences, equally
divided between custody and licensed supervision. There is no appeal against
sentence.
Trial and Conviction
[3] The prosecution of the appellant arose out of a police search of a dwelling
house at 17 Beechmount Close, Belfast (“the premises”) on 11 June 2017. The
appellant and three other persons were present. The search of a bedroom
uncovered a holdall containing inter alia an imitation firearm, five containers of
ammunition, bullets, black armoured gloves, armoured gloves, latex gloves, a cool
bag and a knuckle duster.
[4] The defence statement consisted of a blanket denial, with two exceptions
namely the appellant’s acceptance that (a) he was residing at the premises at the
material time and (b) he would have made normal use of their facilities and
amenities. When the trial began the court was presented with an extensive
schedule of agreed facts, which was in the following terms:
1. The defendant was resident at 17 Beechmount Close, Belfast on 11 June 2017.
2. He provided the NIHE with 17 Beechmount Close as his permanent address on
30 January 2017.
3. The police searched the said property on 11 June 2017 in or around 11am.
4. The search of 17 Beechmount Close, Belfast was as a result of an intelligence led
operation. Detective Inspector Griffin had provided a Briefing on Saturday 10 June
2017 regarding the premises to be searched - see Statement of Detective Constable
McVicar at page 10.
5. A further Briefing was given to Police involved on the morning of Sunday 11 June
2017 at Dunmurry PSNI Station at approximately 10:15 hours and Police thereafter
searched the above-named address at 17 Beechmount Close and 82 Beechmount
Avenue.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Queen v Shaun Hegarty
...cases refered to above has been consistently followed in this jurisdiction: see R v J [2012] NICA 39, R v H [2016] NICA 41 and R v Murphy [2021] NICA 16. [41] Mr McCartney readily accepted that the test places a heavy burden on the applicant. The overriding question is whether the verdict i......