Queen v Seamus Morgan, Terence Marks, Joseph Lynch and Kevin Heaney
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Maguire LJ |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NICA 67 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 22 December 2021 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NICA 67
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: MAG11644
ICOS No: 17/094876
Delivered: 22/12/2021
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1980
___________
THE QUEEN
v
SEAMUS MORGAN, TERENCE MARKS, JOSEPH LYNCH
AND KEVIN HEANEY
___________
John Larkin QC and Mr Terence McCleave BL (instructed by McNamee McDonnell
Solicitors) for Seamus Morgan and Terence Marks
Mr Barry MacDonald QC and Mr Joseph O’Keeffe BL (instructed by Phoenix Law
Solicitors) for Joseph Lynch
Mr Ciaran Mallon QC and Ms Bobbie Rea BL (instructed by M L White Solicitors) for
Kevin Heaney
Mr Ciaran Murphy QC, Mr Magee QC and Mr Russell BL (instructed by the Public
Prosecution Service) for the Prosecution
Dr Tony McGleenan QC and Mr Philip McAteer BL (instructed by Crown Solicitor’s
Office) for the Notice Party, the Ministry of Justice
___________
Before: Treacy LJ, Maguire LJ and Horner J
___________
MAGUIRE LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] In these proceedings the court is sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal to hear
appeals against sentence on the part of four offenders
1
who were initially sentenced
at a hearing before the trial judge, Colton J, on 13 November 2020.
1
Originally there were six offenders before the Court but for reasons which do not need
elucidation two have decided to stand back for the moment.
2
[2] The period within which each and every one of the offenders could have
appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the judge has long since expired.
But in each case the offender now seeks an order from the court extending the time
in which to appeal.
[3] If time is extended it appears to be common case that there is no need for the
Court to grant leave to appeal as the offences at issue in these cases are all
“scheduled” offences and in respect of such offences leave to appeal is not required:
see, section 5(7)(b) of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007.
The underlying position
[4] It is worthwhile to refer briefly to the underlying position in these cases. All
of the offenders were tried together and charged with a variety of offences. All of
the offences were terrorist offences with the events giving rise to the offences having
occurred chiefly in or about 2014. While initially everyone pleaded “not guilty”, on
19 January 2020, each of the offenders pleaded guilty. Thereafter, on 13 November
2020, Colton J handed down sentences in respect of each offender. It is convenient
for the court to set out in tabular form the following information in respect of the
sentencing exercise:
Offender
Offences
Sentence imposed by
Colton J - 13/11/2020
Terence
Marks
Belonging to or professing to belong to a
proscribed organisation contrary to
section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 –
one count
4 years’ imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
Receiving weapons, training or instruction
contrary to section 54(2) of the Terrorism
Act 2000
4 years’ imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
Note the above
sentences run
concurrently.
Seamus
Morgan
Belonging to or professing to belong to a
proscribed organisation contrary to
section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 –
one count
3 years’ imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
Joseph
Matthew
Lynch
Conspiracy to possess explosives with
intent to endanger life or cause serious
injury to property, contrary to Article 9(1)
of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy
(Northern Ireland) Order 1983 and section
3(1)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act
1883 – one count
6 years and 6 months
imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
3
Conspiracy to possess firearms and/or
ammunition with intent, contrary to
Article 9(1) of the Criminal Attempts and
Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
and Article 58(1) of the Firearms
(Northern Ireland) Order 2004 – one count
6 years and 6 months
imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
Preparation of terrorist acts, contrary to
section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 – 5
counts
6 years and 6 months
imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
Belonging to or professing to belong to a
proscribed organisation contrary, to
section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 –
one count
5 years’ imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
Receiving training or instruction in the
making or use of weapons for terrorism,
contrary to section 54(2) of the Terrorism
Act 2000 – 2 counts
6 years and 6 months
imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
Attending at a place used for terrorist
training, contrary to section 8 of the
Terrorism Act 2006 – 2 counts
6 years and 6 months
imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
Note the above
sentences run
concurrently.
Kevin John
Paul Heaney
Belonging to or professing to belong to a
proscribed organisation contrary, to
section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 –
one count
3 years and 6 months
imprisonment
(50% custody, 50%
licence)
[5] As has already been noted, none of offenders appealed against sentence and it
is clear that interest in an appeal against sentence has been generated only in recent
days.
The Appeals
[6] The precipitating factor in relation to the appeals which have now come
forward has been the passage through Parliament in 2021 of the Counter Terrorism
and Sentencing Act. This received Royal Assent on 29 April 2021. By virtue of
section 50, section 30 entered into force the day after the Act was passed. Section 30
introduced Article 20A into the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 from
30 April 2021. It is this step which is at the core of events and will be discussed later
on in this judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
(1) Anthony Lancaster's (2) Sharon Rafferty's and (3) Anthony McDonnell's Application and in the matter of decisions of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for the Home Department
...2008 Order). The challenge in Morgan was that this amendment was contrary to article 7(1) ECHR. [104] While the Court of Appeal in Morgan [2021] NICA 67 found that there had been a breach of article 7, the Supreme Court held that Article 20A of the 2008 Order had not imposed an additional p......
-
Heaney (Kevin) Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review and in the matter of decisions of the Ministry of Justice, The Department of Justice for Northern Ireland, The Executive Committee of The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive Office
...were to be heard by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 22 December 2021: see R v Morgan, Marks, Lynch and Heaney [2021] NICA 67. It considered what remedy, if any, it could provide in light of its conclusion that there had been a breach of the appellants’ rights under......
-
Marks (Terence) Application for Judicial Review and in the matter of a decision of The Minister for Justice
...under Articles 5, 6 and 7 ECHR. The Court of Appeal agreed that there was a breach of Article 7: see R v Morgan, Marks, Lynch & Heaney [2021] NICA 67, at para [113]. However, the court further considered that section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) did not permit the relevant provision......
-
Minister for Justice & Equality v Walsh
...refers to the judgement of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal delivered on 22 nd December 2021 in R v. Morgan, Marks, Lynch and Heaney [2021] NICA 67. In Morgan, the Northern Ireland Court of Criminal Appeal heard appeals against sentence on the part of four defendants initially sentenced......