Queen v Orhan Koca
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Judgment Date | 01 April 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICA 16 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 01 April 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICA 16
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11809
Delivered: 01/04/2022
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
THE QUEEN
v
ORHAN KOCA
________
Before: McCloskey LJ, McFarland J and Rooney J
________
Representation
Appellant: Mr Kevin Magill, of counsel, (instructed by R Gillen solicitor)
Respondent: Mr Charles MacCreanor QC and Ms Rosie Walsh, of counsel, (instructed by
the PPS)
________
McCloskey LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] Orhan Koca (“the appellant”) renews his applications to this court for leave
to appeal against his conviction of murder and ensuing sentence of life
imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years and to extend time for appealing,
leave to appeal having been refused by the single judge. The appeal was heard on
23 March 2022. The court has derived much assistance from counsels’ written and
oral submissions.
Appeal History
[2] The material events in the Crown Court unfolded in March and May 2017.
The notice of appeal is dated 1 October 2020. The appellant had no legal
representation in this court until, on 21 January 2022, this court exercised its power
under article 26(1) of the Access to Justice (NI) Order 2003 (formerly section 19(1) of
the Criminal Appeal (NI) Act 1980) appointing solicitor and counsel to represent
him at public expense. The court considered it appropriate to exercise this power
mainly because, following several remote review listings, it had become clear that
the appellant was struggling to represent himself adequately, with the result that
2
the appointment was necessary in fulfilment of his common law right to a fair
hearing. The court further took into account that during the intervening period of
approximately 15 months the appellant’s several efforts to secure legal
representation had been fruitless.
[3] The co-operation of the Public Prosecution Service (“PPS”) in the matter of
preparing the hearing bundles and other materials has been exemplary. As a result
of insistence on a strict timetable it has proved possible to conduct a substantive
listing within two months of the aforementioned appointment.
The Prosecution Case
[4] The following resume is distilled from the formal document presented by the
prosecution in the Crown Court.
[5] The deceased was a student and a promising young boxer. He was stabbed
to death at around 2.30am on 30 May 2015 in the area of Summerhill
Drive/Summerhill Park, Belfast. Before his death he had been in the home of his
girlfriend (married to the appellant, with three children of the relationship) at
23 Summerhill Drive. Having stepped outside the premises to check for a pizza
delivery he was attacked, stabbed repeatedly and killed. The cause of death was
multiple stab wounds.
[6] The prosecution case was that the appellant murdered the deceased because
of the aforementioned relationship. The person described as the girlfriend of the
deceased was married to the appellant. They had three young children. At the
material time they had been estranged for a period of some few months. The
deceased and the appellant’s wife had been together in the family home
immediately prior to the fatal attack. The appellant no longer lived in the family
home. The prosecution case was that the appellant is an aggressive person who
was very possessive of his wife and committed the murder actuated by jealously.
[7] There was evidence that prior to their physical separation the appellant had
begun checking up on the conduct and whereabouts of his wife. He did this
particularly via Facebook, utilising a false identity. This gave him access to the
Facebook pages of his wife, her friends and the deceased. He accused her of having
an affair with her employer and threatened that he would kill this person some four
weeks prior to the murder. He accessed photographs of his wife and the deceased
and questioned her about this. He saved these photographs to his mobile phone.
[8] On the morning of 29 May 2015 the appellant visited the family home for the
purpose of bringing the children to school. On this occasion he questioned his wife
about her relationship with the deceased. She responded that she did not love the
appellant anymore and was in love with another person, unidentified, in a
relationship of some three months’ duration. The killing occurred less than 24
hours later.
To continue reading
Request your trial