Queen v Jones (Gary) Ruling No 2: No Case to Answer
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NICC 43 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 30 September 2010 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NICC 43 Ref:
McCL7960
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
30/09/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE CROWN COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
Sitting at Belfast
________
THE QUEEN
-v-
GARY JONES
________
RULING NO. 2: NO CASE TO ANSWER
________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This ruling determines an application by the Defendant at the close of the
prosecution case for a verdict of not guilty on the ground that he has no case to
answer.
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] The Defendant’s retrial began (on 14th September 2010), the delay occasioned
by a combination of the court’s involvement in another unfinished trial and
significant prosecution witness difficulties). From the outset of the trial, an
application to stay the indictment as an abuse of process was signalled. That
particular application was inextricably linked with a series of evolving disclosure
requests by the defence and, while it has been reduced to the form of written
submissions and has been considered in outline by the court, it has not yet formally
and finally materialised. At this juncture, the prosecution case having closed, it is
overtaken by the present application and stands deferred.
II THE PROSECUTION CASE
[4] The following four paragraphs contain a résumé of the written outline of the
prosecution case helpfully provided by Mrs. McKay (of counsel) at the outset of the
trial. The prosecution case revolves around the alleged 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 an area of waste ground commonly used as 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 it 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
To continue reading
Request your trial