R v Sean Kelly
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen LJ |
| Judgment Date | 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] NICA 29 |
| Date | 20 February 2015 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2015] NICA 29 Ref:
GIL9539
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
20/02/2015
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_______
THE QUEEN
-v-
SEAN KELLY
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Gillen LJ
________
GILLEN LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against sentence imposed by the Crown Court sitting in
Belfast following the appellant’s pleas of guilty to six counts on a Bill of
Indictment on which there were four defendants namely himself,
Sharon Rafferty, Gavin Coney and Terence Coney.
[2] Ms Quinlivan QC appeared on behalf of the appellant with
Mr McGarrity. Mr Murphy QC appeared on behalf of the prosecution with
Mr Russell. We are grateful to counsel for the sharp focus of their skeleton
arguments and the efficient economy of their oral submissions at the hearing
before us.
Factual Background
[3] During the period leading up to the appellant’s arrest he was under
surveillance and recordings were made of conversations he had with his co-
accused Sharon Rafferty. Transcripts of recorded conversations between the
appellant and Ms Rafferty that took place over several months between
9 November 2011 and 27 March 2012 were provided to the court.
[4] Surveillance officers were deployed on 30 March 2012 in the
Carrickmore and Creggan areas. Having detected phone contact between the
appellant and Ms Rafferty, the officers followed them and they were observed
walking with the co-accused Aiden Coney and another male into
2
Formil Woods. Gunfire was heard with bursts of single shots followed by
pauses about 11.30 am which continued for about 40 minutes and at 12.41 the
car in which the appellant and his co-accused had arrived at the Wood was
seen to drive off. Examination of the Wood revealed strike marks on various
trees and targets pinned to the trees, namely popped balloons and a tin with
numerous holes in it. The impact damage was consistent with .22 calibre lead
bullets. DNA profiles matching those of the appellant and Ms Rafferty were
recovered from the balloons.
The appellant’s pleas of guilty
[5] The basis of the pleas of guilty by the appellant was on certain agreed
facts.
[6] Counts 2, 3 and 18 related to incidents on 30 March 2012 and constituted
pleas to:
• Possession of a firearm in suspicious circumstances contrary to
Article 64(1) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
• Count 3 namely attending a place used for terrorist training contrary to
Section 8 of the Terrorism Act 2006.
• Count 18 preparation for terrorist acts contrary to Section 5 of the
Terrorism Act 2006.
[7] The facts founding these three counts were that the appellant attended
Formil Wood on 30 March 2012. While there he used a .22 Walther rifle and
.22 ammunition to shoot at balloons and a can. He was not the owner of the
weapon which was owned by a co-defendant who held a licence for the gun
and ammunition. The appellant engaged in target shooting with the weapon
and ammunition. He had not brought the firearm or ammunition to
Formil Wood, did not remove them from the Wood, and only had use of the
weapon and ammunition whilst at Formil Wood. He therefore admitted being
at a place used for terrorist training (Count 3) and possession of a firearm and
ammunition in suspicion circumstances (Count 2).
[8] The appellant admitted that he engaged in target practice with the
weapon with the intention of seeing whether it could be used in terrorist
training in the future. This constituted preparation for terrorists acts of an
unidentified nature in the future (Count 18).
[9] Throughout interviews in connection with these counts, the appellant
did not provide any explanation for his actions that day.
To continue reading
Request your trial
9 cases
-
R v Morgan & Others
...matters referred to in Article 15(2). [112] These provisions have been well traversed and have been summarised in the case of R v Kelly [2015] NICA 29. In the discussion of those authorities in Kelly Gillen LJ said at paragraph [41] – “Principles that can be distilled from these authorities......
-
The King v Niall Lehd
...a mere possibility, a remote prospect, of future harm will not suffice. This court has further emphasised in, for example, R v Kelly [2015] NICA 29 that the sentencing court should take account of every item of available information bearing on the predictive evaluative judgement to be forme......
-
The Queen v Kazia Chandler
...Others [2009] 1 WLR 2517, R v Wong [2012] NICA 54, R v Beesley and Others [2012] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 71 and R v Cambridge [2015] NICA 4 17 [2015] NICA 29 18 In R v Lang Rose LJ stated that, "In assessing the risk of further offences being committed, the sentencer should take into account the n......
-
King v Filippo Sangermano
...a mere possibility, a remote prospect, of future harm will not suffice. This court has further emphasised in, for example, R v Kelly [2015] NICA 29 that the sentencing court should take account of every item of information bearing on the predictive evaluative judgment to be formed. Inexhaus......
Request a trial to view additional results