R v Louis Maguire
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Girvan LJ |
| Judgment Date | 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] NICA 71 |
| Date | 04 December 2015 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2015] NICA 71 Ref:
GIR9667
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
04/12/2015
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
R
-v-
LOUIS MAGUIRE
________
Girvan LJ, Stephens J and Horner J
The Judgment of the Court
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction brought by
Louis Maguire (“the applicant”) following his conviction on 17 February 2006 for
murder and arson with intent to endanger life. A notice of appeal was lodged on
23 February 2006. Leave to appeal was refused by Gillen J acting as the Single Judge.
The applicant was convicted of murder and arson with intent to endanger life
following a trial before Morgan J sitting with a jury at Belfast Crown Court. The
applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 24 years for the offence
of murder and to 12 years’ imprisonment for arson with intent to endanger life.
There is a separate application for leave to appeal that sentence.
[2] During the trial counsel for the applicant withdrew 21 days into the trial and
thereafter the applicant represented himself for the remaining 54 days of the trial.
The circumstances in which the applicant’s counsel and solicitor withdrew from the
case were central to the application for leave to appeal.
[3] Mr Fitzgerald QC appeared with Mr Moriarty for the applicant. Mr Mooney
QC and Mr McKay QC appeared for the Crown. The Court is grateful to counsel for
their helpful and detailed submissions.
2
Grounds of Appeal
[4] While there appear to have been several versions of the grounds of appeal the
grounds of appeal relied on by the applicant before the court can be summarised as
follows:
(a) The learned trial judge (“the judge”) erred in allowing the trial to continue
after counsel withdrew and in failing to carry out adequate inquiry into
the reasons for the withdrawal of Counsel for the applicant. The
applicant was deprived of his right to be defended by Counsel and
accordingly did not have a fair trial.
(b) The judge erred in refusing to adjourn the trial following the withdrawal
of counsel and violated the applicant’s right to have adequate time and
facilities to prepare and conduct his defence pursuant to Art 6 ECHR. In
the result the applicant was deprived of a fair trial.
(c) The judge erred in admitting evidence of the applicant’s previous conduct
under Article 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (Northern Ireland)
Order 2004 (“the 2004 Order”) as it did not relate to “matters in issue
between the defendant and the prosecution” and the admission of same
was likely to have, and did have, such an adverse effect on the fairness of
the trial that it ought not to have been admitted.
(d) The judge erred in admitting evidence of the applicant’s previous
convictions under Article 6(1) of the 2004 Order as its admission was
likely to have, and did have, such an adverse effect on the trial that it
ought not to have been admitted.
(e) The judge erred in accentuating in an unnecessary fashion the applicant’s
bad character.
(f) The judge erred in allowing the trial to continue in circumstances where
press reports created a real risk of prejudice to the applicant.
(g) The judge erred in allowing the trial to continue when the process had
been infected with the appearance of bias.
(h) The judge erred in directing the jury that there had been no need for an
identity parade to be held in circumstances where an identity parade
would have afforded the applicant an opportunity to disassociate himself
from a previous incident directed at the deceased.
(i) The judge erred in not discharging the jury when it became apparent that
the Crown opening was misleading and inaccurate.
3
(j) The overall circumstances of the case and the refusal of the abuse of
process application relating to the premature termination of the second
trial without exploring the reasons of its termination and without
explaining it created the perception of an unfair trial.
(k) The police failed to disclose to the Crown, the defence and the Court that
DI Logan, a Crown witness who was involved in the investigation of the
case and in particular in relation to the surveillance evidence, was
suspected of criminality by the Police at least from 29 November 2005
onwards. He continued as case officer and gave evidence on 7, 15 and
16 December 2005 despite the fact that he was under investigation at that
time. His suspected criminality was not revealed until after the judge had
begun his charge. The trial judge wrongly limited questioning of
DI Logan. The jury were not discharged even after DI Logan had been
arrested. Instead he was recalled to give evidence causing an interruption
in the completion of the charge to the jury.
(l) Justice was not seen to be done and the trial process was unfair for the
following cumulative reasons:
i. There was unjustified overall delay.
ii. The aborting of the second trial remained unexplained and
unexplored by the trial judge who wrongly declined to enquire into
the reasons the abuse of process application.
iii. DI Logan remained as case officer and gave evidence despite his
suspected criminality and gave evidence part way through the
judge’s charge to the jury.
iv. The Crown opened matters not borne out by the evidence.
v. There was prejudicial press coverage which could not be cured by
judicial direction.
vi. The applicant was unrepresented throughout most of the trial due to
improper advice from counsel.
The timetable of procedural steps in the proceedings
[5] The applicant was committed for trial at Belfast Crown Court on three counts
namely on count 1 for the offence of murder; on count 2 for the offence of arson with
intent to endanger life; and on an alternative count 3 for the offence of arson.
[6] The incidents giving rise to the charges occurred in January 2003 in relation to
the arson charge and in March 2003 in relation to the murder charge. The applicant
was charged with the offences in June 2003 and was returned for trial on 6 July 2004.
A No Bill application was heard by Coghlin J on 8 October 2004 and refused. On
19 November 2004 at a review hearing before Coghlin J the trial date was fixed for
14 February 2005.
To continue reading
Request your trial