Queen v Gary Davidson, Robin Neeson and Gillian Rose Agnew
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Deeny J |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] NICC 28 |
| Date | 28 June 2005 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2005 |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2005] NICC 28
Ref:
DEEC5244
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
28/06/05
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
THE QUEEN
- v -
GARY DAVIDSON, ROBIN NEESON AND GILLIAN ROSE AGNEW
________
CROWN APPLICATION TO ADMIT IN EVIDENCE AGAINST
THE ACCUSED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVIDENCE OF
D AT THE PREVIOUS TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED IN 2004
________
DEENY J
Introduction
[1] Gary Davidson, Robin Neeson and Gillian Rose Agnew were jointly
indicted for the murder of Christopher Whitson (“the deceased”) in the
carpark of a nightclub called Lush beside the Golf Links Hotel, Portrush, on
4 August 2002. An important witness against the first two accused was a man
to whom I will refer as witness D. He worked part-time as a door steward for
the proprietor of the nightclub and was on duty on the night in question.
[2] The accused were tried before Lord Justice Nicholson and a jury at
Ballymena on 27, 28, 29 and 30 September and the 4, 5, 6 and 7 October 2004
during which time some twenty prosecution witnesses were called to give
evidence.
[3] D gave evidence and was cross-examined on 4 and 5 October 2004. He
was followed as a witness by a man to whom I shall refer as witness M, who
gave evidence on 5 and 6 October 2004. Although he had earlier identified
the accused at a police identification parade his evidence in chief for the
Crown did not assist the prosecution. In cross-examination he went further
2
and expressly gave evidence that Mr Neeson was not present at the scene of
the fatal assault upon Mr Whitson in the carpark of the club.
[4] Mrs Tessa Kitson, Junior Counsel for the prosecution sought to re-
examine him on some of these points. Mr Charles Adair QC for the defendant
Neeson objected and she did not press the matter.
[5] Lord Justice Nicholson appears to have formed the view that there
might be something untoward behind M’s exoneration of Neeson. At the end
of the re-examination he directed the jury to retire and he then proceeded to
put a number of questions to M. Defence counsel characterised this as cross-
examination of the witness by the judge and Crown counsel did not dissent
from that description.
[6] Furthermore at one point in the course of this questioning of the
witness by the judge the learned judge called for the investigating officer in
the case. A detective came forward and he was directed by the learned judge
to go to the home of the witness M and interview his wife with a view to
establishing whether M was telling the truth about his lack of friendship or
familiarity with the accused Robin Neeson. He subsequently directed M not
to return home himself but to remain in the presence of the court. At the
conclusion of the judge’s questioning of M the senior counsel for Robin
Neeson immediately objected to what had taken place. He submitted that
what had occurred was unprecedented, including the cross-examination of a
witness by a judge to discredit that witness. The judge was invited by counsel
to discharge the jury and recuse himself. Mr Weir QC, senior counsel for the
prosecution, did not feel able to stand over what the judge had done.
[7] The following day 7 October Lord Justice Nicholson acceded to this
application to recuse himself and discharge the jury but without giving any
reasons for his decision.
[8] The trial of the three accused was then re-listed for the following
Monday 11 October 2004 before myself. While I was swearing a jury in
another murder trial counsel for the Crown sought to consult with their two
principal witnesses D and M. Unfortunately they found both of them in a
state of considerable distress. Although both were described as robust middle
aged men who were, indeed, working as “doormen” at this nightclub at the
time of the fatal incident, both were very upset at the prospect of giving
evidence for a second time. One showed signs of hypertension, which he
suffered from and angina, and the other of considerable psychological
distress. In the event they were both taken to Antrim Hospital. They were
released after being examined by doctors. The case was adjourned to the
following day. On that occasion the prosecuting counsel produced a short
note from one witness indicating that he was unfit to give evidence and
promising a further report with regard to the other witness. He applied to
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Queen v Barry David Skinner and Richard David McCartan
...fear not giving oral evidence in these proceedings. As I ruled in the earlier Ruling and in my earlier judgment in R – v – Davidson, 2005, NICC, 28, I consider that this is a matter which the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with the normal standard of proof in crimina......
-
R v Richard D McCartan & Barry D Skinner
...is the approach of the Court to this task? I had to consider this issue under the previous legislation in R-v-Davison, Neeson and Agnew 2005 NICC 28, a trial for murder with a jury. I did so at paragraphs 18 to 33 of that judgment which I will not repeat. In that case one of the senior Coun......