Queen v QP
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Colton J |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICA 36 |
| Date | 09 May 2022 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICA 36
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: COL11825
ICOS No:
Delivered: 09/05/2022
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
REGINA
v
QP
_________
Before: McCloskey LJ and Colton J
_________
Mr Charles MacCreanor QC and Ms Kate McKay BL (instructed by the Public Prosecution
Service) for the Crown
Mr Gavan Duffy QC and Mr Michael Ward BL (instructed by MacElhatton Solicitors) for
the Appellant
_________
COLTON J (delivering the judgment of the court)
Reporting Restrictions
The complainant and injured party is entitled to automatic lifetime anonymity by
virtue of section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, as amended. As
a result neither this judgment nor any other form of communication or
publication should disclose her identity or any information from which she might
be identified.
Introduction
[1] On 2 October 2020 at Laganside Crown Court, Belfast the appellant was
convicted by a majority jury verdict of 10/2 of a single count of raping his mother.
The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a further count to the same effect. In his
carefully considered decision Huddleston J, the single judge, noted that in
R v Creaney [2015] NICA 43 this court, adopting what Lord Halsham had stated in
R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510 at 519h, identified the following principles relating to
directing the jury:
(i) The judge must identify the defence case.
2
(ii) The judge must strike a fair balance between the prosecution case and the
defence case.
(iii) The judge must not be so critical as effectively to withdraw the issue of guilt
or innocence from the jury.
In granting leave to appeal Huddleston J stated at para [20]:
“… leave is granted on the appeal against conviction on the
grounds that it is arguable that [the trial judge] may have
overreached on some of the issues in light of the principles set
out in R v Creaney.”
[2] The appellant was punished by the imposition of an extended custodial
sentence of ten years imprisonment augmented by an extended licence period of five
years. Huddleston J also granted leave to appeal against sentence.
Grounds of Appeal
[3] Considering that the grounds of appeal lacked clarity and particularity, this
court directed the provision of amended grounds. These are in the following terms:
Ground 1
The conviction of the appellant was unsafe as a result of an unfairness in the trial
process, namely:
(i) The failure of the trial judge to place the defendant’s case fairly and properly
before the jury; and
(ii) By including in her charge comments and instructions to the jury which
amounted in effect to a direction to disregard the most significant aspect of
the defence case.
Ground 2
The conviction of the appellant was unsafe as a result of an unfairness in the trial
process, namely:
(i) The learned trial judge misrepresented the significant [sic] and relevance of
the defence forensic expert as to the DNA findings; and
(ii) (The learned trial judge) failed to properly place before the jury the potential
value of this evidence to the defence case.
To continue reading
Request your trial