Queen v William James Fulton
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Girvan LJ |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] NICA 39 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 19 June 2009 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2009] NICA 39 Ref:
GIR7504
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
19/6/09
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
THE QUEEN
-v-
WILLIAM JAMES FULTON
________
Girvan LJ Gillen J and McLaughlin J
GIRVAN LJ
Introduction Paras [1]-[2]
Appeal issues Para [3]
Background to the appeal Paras [4]–[7]
The defence statement Para [8]
The disclosure applications in the trial Paras [9]-[19]
Analysis of the ruling of 23 February 2006 Paras [20]-[39]
Abuse of process issue Paras [40]-[59]
Arguments on issue Paras [40]-[47]
Conclusions on the issue Paras [48]-[59]
The admissibility of evidence issue Paras [60]-[93]
The trial judge’s rulings Paras [64]-[70]
Parties’ arguments on the issue Paras [71]-[75]
Conclusions on the issue Paras [76]-[93]
Issue of insufficiency of evidence Paras [94]-[113]
Count 1 Paras [95]-[107]
Counts 3 & 4 Paras [108]-[110]
Counts 9 & 11 Paras [111]-[113]
The alternative counts issue Paras [114]-[129]
Disposal of appeal against convictions Para [130]
Introduction
[1] The appellant appeals against his conviction by the learned trial judge
Hart J (“the trial judge”) sitting alone without a jury on a large number of
counts charged on a bill of indictment dated 11th June 2003. The appellant
was found guilty of more than 40 offences including aiding and abetting
2
murder, conspiracy to murder, causing explosions, possession of explosives,
malicious wounding, causing grievous bodily harm, membership of a
terrorist organisation and directing terrorism. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment with a tariff of 25 years on the first count and was sentenced to
a number of determinate sentences in relation to the other counts on which he
was convicted. Details of the convictions and the sentences are set out in the
table below:
SUMMARY OF CONVICTIONS
COUNT NO.
OFFENCE
SENTENCE
1
Murder of Mary Elizabeth O’Neill
(common law)
Life (25 years
minimum term)
2
Between 3 June 1999 and 6 June
1999
aiding, abetting, counselling
or procuring others to use a pipe
bomb to cause an explosion likely
to endanger life/cause serious
injury to property (s2 Explosive
Substances Act 1883)
20 years (concurrent)
3
Between 3 June 1999 and 6 June
1999 aiding, abetting, counselling
or procuring others to attempt to
murder Janelle Woods (Article 3(1)
Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy
(NI) Order 1983 and common law)
20 years (concurrent)
4
Between 3 June 1999 and 6 June
1999 aiding
, abetting, counselling
or procuring others to attempt to
murder Steven Black
(Article 3(1)
Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy
(NI) Order 1983 and common law)
20 years (concurrent)
5
Between 3 June 1999 and 6 June
1999 aiding, abetting, counselling
or procuring others to attempt to
cause GBH to Janelle Woods
(section 18 Offences Against the
Person Act 1861, Article 3(1)
Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy
(NI) Order 1983)
20 years (concurrent)
6
Between 3 June 1999 and 6 June
1999 aiding, abetting, counselling
or procuring others to use a pipe
bomb to cause an explosion likely
to endanger life/cause serious
20 years (concurrent)
3
injury to property (s2 Explosive
Substances Act 1883)
7
Between 3 June 1999 and 6 June
1999 aiding, abetting, counselling
or procuring others
to attempt to
cause GBH to Steven Black (section
18 Offences Against the Person Act
1861, Article 3(1) Criminal
Attempts and Conspiracy (NI)
Order 1983)
20 years (concurrent)
8
Attempted murder Joseph Murnin
on 4 June 1999
(Article 3(1)
Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy
(NI) Order 1983 and common law)
20 years (concurrent)
9
Attempted murder Mark Thomas
Murphy on 4 June 1999 (Article
3(1) Criminal Attempts and
Conspiracy (NI) Order 1983 and
common law
20 years (concurrent)
10
Attempt to cause GBH with intent
Joseph Murnin on 4 June 1999
(section 18 Offences Against the
Person Act 1861, Article 3(1)
Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy
(NI) Order 1983)
20 years (concurrent)
11
Attempt to cause GBH with intent
Mark Thomas Murphy on 4 June
1999 (section 18 Offences Against
the Person Act 1861, Article 3(1)
Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy
(NI) Order 1983)
20 years (concurrent)
12
Causing an explosion likely to
endanger life/cause serious injury
to property on 4 June 1999 (s2
Explosive Substances Act 1883)
20 years (concurrent)
13
Possession of RGD grenade with
intent to cause an explosion likely
to endanger life/cause serious
injury to property on 4 June 1999
(s3(1)(b) Explosive Substances Act
1883)
20 years (concurrent)
14
Attempted murder of John Barr on
9 July 1998 (Article 3(1) Criminal
Attempts and Conspiracy (NI)
Order 1983 and common law)
28 years (concurrent)
15
Attempted murder of Jason
28 years (concurrent)
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Queen v Jones (Gary) Ruling No 3: Abuse of Process
...the delay.” The decision in The Queen –v- S was considered by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in The Queen –v- Fulton [2009] NICA 39, at paragraph [52], per Girvan LJ: “[52] The normal rule is that he who asserts the abuse of process must prove it and do so on the balance of probabilit......
-
Queen v Canning (Marvin)
...not suffice. This is the clear theme of a recent pronouncement of some substance by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in R –v- Fulton [2009] NICA 39, where Girvan LJ stated: “[56] Having regard to the fact that a stay for abuse of process must be fully exceptional and relate to some fund......
-
Queen v Kearns (Desmond Paul), McCaugherty (Paul Anthony John) and Gregory (Dermot Declan) aka Michael Dermot Gregory
...and a number of later authorities, Rose LJ expressly propounded the Court's view in the context of delay. However, in R-v-Fulton [2009] NICA 39 at [52] Girvan LJ referred to the reasoning of Rose LJ in the following passage – “The normal rule is that he who asserts the abuse of process must......
-
Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Department of the Environment for NI
...and applied by this court in Re DPP’s Application for Judicial Review [1999] NI 106, R v Murray and others [2006] NICA 33 and R v Fulton [2009] NICA 39. All of these cases recognise that the determination of whether a stay is appropriate is a discretionary decision, that such a decision is ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Best evidence or best interests? What does the case law say about the function of criminal cross-examination?
...use tactics which caused a ‘derogation of theappellant’s right to exercise a free choice whether to speak or to be silent’: RvFulton [2009] NICA 39 at [91]. See alsoCanada: RþvOickle [2000] SCC 38, 36 CR (5th) 129, 147 CCC (3d) 321; RvS(K) (2000) 36 CR (5th) 198, 148 CCC (3d)247, 50 OR (3d)......