Queen v Jones (Gary) Ruling No 3: Abuse of Process
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NICC 44 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 01 October 2010 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NICC 44 Ref:
McCL7986
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
11/10/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE CROWN COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
Sitting at Belfast
________
THE QUEEN
-v-
GARY JONES
________
RULING NO. 3: ABUSE OF PROCESS
________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This ruling determines an application by the Defendant for an order staying
his trial on the ground that it constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
Background
[2] The Defendant is charged with one count of doing an act with intent to cause
an explosion and a further count of possession of an explosive substance with intent
to endanger life, contrary to Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) respectively of the Explosive
Substances Act 1883 ( “the 1883 Act”). The history of this prosecution is as follows:
(a) On 27th October 2006, following a trial before Morgan J, the Defendant
was acquitted of attempted murder (then the first count on the
indictment) and convicted of causing an explosion, contrary to Section
2 of the 1883 Act [ no longer alleged ] . He was sentenced to 14 years
imprisonment.
2
(b) In a reserved judgment delivered on 5th July 2007, the Court of Appeal
allowed the Defendant’s appeal and ordered a retrial.
(c) The Defendant’s first re-trial was aborted, with no outcome. As a
result, this is his second re-trial.
(d) On 28th May 2010, the court (Hart J) conducted a pre-trial review. On
that occasion, it was represented that there were no outstanding
applications and both prosecution and defence were ready for trial. A
fresh trial date in June 2010 was allocated.
(e) The scheduled retrial of the Defendant did not proceed in the event
and a new retrial date of 7th September 2010 was allocated.
[3] When the Defendant’s retrial began (on 14th September 2010), this application
was signalled. The parties subsequently exchanged skeleton arguments, duly
augmented by oral submissions from counsel. While this application materialised
and was presented, the trial continued. This application has been, to some extent,
organic in nature, being linked to evolving requests on behalf of the Defendant for
further disclosure. Given the unsatisfactory history of this trial, in particular delays,
the factors in favour of continuing to hear the prosecution evidence pending
completion and determination of this discrete application seemed to me compelling.
II THE PROSECUTION CASE
[4] The prosecution case revolves around the conduct of the Defendant and the
activities of a white Ford Transit van on 21st July 1998 in the vicinity of Monaghan
Street, Newry. It is alleged that after 4.30pm on this date the van was driven into a
laneway which separates Nos. 25 and 27 Monaghan Street and provides access to a
makeshift car park. Upon turning into this access the van had a minor collision with
a parked vehicle. The van then adopted a parked position in the area of waste
ground. A male person, whom the Crown say is the Defendant, was seen coming
from the area of the van. He was challenged by another male, Mr. Lennon, who had
observed the collision. When the Defendant refused to stop, Mr. Lennon attempted
to restrain him physically. During the ensuing struggle, the Defendant wriggled out
of his jumper and denim jacket and left the scene hastily.
[5] The minor vehicular collision was the impetus for a call to the police and
certain officers attended the scene. A police vehicle drove into the waste ground and
two officers disembarked, in close proximity to the parked van. One of them noticed
something peculiar about its roof. At this stage, there was a bang akin to an
explosion, emitting an object through the roof of the van which came to rest on the
ground a short distance away. This object did not explode. There were no
casualties.
3
[6] The prosecution say that the Defendant drove the van into the waste ground
and parked it there, with a view to launching a mortar attack on the nearby police
station, which is separated from the waste ground by a wall. The van was
positioned accordingly. In the event, the attack failed. While the explosive device
was duly launched from the van, it travelled a very short distance only and did not
detonate. It is claimed that this was a viable device which, on detonation, was
capable of endangering life or causing serious damage to property. It is suggested
that both the van and its number plates had been stolen during previous days.
[7] The prosecution case also rests on forensic evidence the focus whereof is the
aforementioned white jumper. It is alleged that on 13th December 2004 (over six
years after the event), following arrest buccal swabs were obtained from the
Defendant. These were matched against a blood stain found on the jumper, giving
rise to the analysis that the chances that the DNA contained in both did not originate
from the Defendant are less than one in a billion. It is further highlighted that the
Defendant failed to make any response when questioned during interview and when
confronted by material items of physical evidence, giving rise to an invitation to the
court to make an inference adverse to him.
III THE EVIDENCE
[8] This chapter of the judgment is not designed as a verbatim rehearsal of all the
evidence adduced. Rather, its purpose is to highlight and summarise the salient
features thereof. Bearing in mind that this is a trial by judge alone, both prosecution
and defence were given an opportunity to address the court on the question of
whether the contents of this chapter have any material omissions or errors. A draft
was provided to the parties to this purpose and the Chapter was finalised
subsequently.
Civilian Witnesses
[9] Finbar Lennon gave evidence that in July 1998 he worked as an office
manager in premises abutting both Monaghan Street (Newry) and an entry
providing access to an area of waste ground, which he described as “full of crap all the
time”. During a meeting with a client inside the office premises, he was alerted by a
noise from outside and went out to investigate. He encountered an irate man
complaining about his car having been struck. Mr. Lennon wondered whether the
gate positioned at the entrance to the entry (for which his firm was responsible) had
been in some way involved. He confirmed that he did not see any other vehicle, nor
did he recall seeing any vehicle either entering the waste ground or positioned
therein.
[10] Some five to ten minutes later, Mr. Lennon and others were attempting to
retrieve their cars from the waste ground. However, they were not permitted to do
so, on account of a cream or white coloured parked van. He saw no one in the
vicinity of the van. Continuing, he recounted that he spoke to “a young lad”. He
To continue reading
Request your trial