Queen v Barry Michael McCarney

JurisdictionNorthern Ireland
JudgeStephens J
Judgment Date2013
Neutral Citation[2013] NICC 1
Date25 January 2013
CourtCrown Court (Northern Ireland)
1
Neutral citation [2013] NICC 1
Ref:
STE8683
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
25-1-13
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE CROWN COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
THE QUEEN
-v-
BARRY MICHAEL McCARNEY
________
STEPHENS J
Introduction
[1] Barry Michael McCarney on 4 December 2012 by a unanimous jury verdict
and after an 8 week trial you were found guilty:
(a) on count 1 of murder on 10 December 2009 of Millie Martin (“Millie”);
(b) on count 4 of causing Millie grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary
to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861; and
(c) on count 7 of sexual assault of Millie, a child, under 13, contrary to
Article 14(1) of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008.
[2] In relation to the offence of murder and on 4 December 2012, I imposed a life
sentence. It is now my responsibility, in relation to that offence and in accordance
with Article 5 of the Life Sentence (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, to determine the
length of the minimum term that you will be required to serve in prison before you
will first become eligible to be released on licence by the Parole Commission. The
minimum term is fixed by reference to retribution and deterrence. The risk that you
pose is a matter for the Parole Commission it being for that Commission to consider
whether, and if so when, you are to be released on licence based on their
consideration of risk.
[3] When you are released on licence you will for the remainder of your life be
liable to be recalled to prison if at any time you do not comply with the terms of that
licence.
2
[4] A minimum term is not the same as a fixed term of imprisonment. A fixed
term of imprisonment may, if a prisoner is of good behaviour, attract remission. You
will receive no remission for any part of the minimum term that I am now about to
determine.
[5] It is also now my responsibility to sentence you in respect of the offence on
Count 4 of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Millie and in respect of the
offence on Count 7 of sexual assault of Millie, a child under 13, contrary to Article
14(1) of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008.
Legal principles as to whether evidence at trial of other offences is relevant to
sentencing for the offences of which you have been convicted and/or whether
such evidence is admissible in relation to the issue of your dangerousness
[6] At your trial one of the circumstances sought to be established in evidence by
the prosecution and relied on by them to establish your guilt of the offences of which
you have been convicted was that Millie was uninjured and thriving in the care of
her mother, Ms Martin, until you became a member of the household and that
thereafter Millie sustained a whole series of non-accidental injuries. In short that
there was an association in time between Millie being assaulted and you becoming a
part of her household. It is clear that Millie did sustain a whole series of injuries
after you became a part of her household and over the period October to December
2009. Those assaults would have amounted to separate offences. You were not
charged with those offences nor were you convicted of them. For instance Millie
sustained 21 rib fractures during that period. You were charged with and convicted
of inflicting 7 of those fractures. You were not charged with any offence in relation
to the remaining 14 rib fractures. Millie also sustained an awful bruise to her right
ear, two bruises to the centre of her forehead, multiple bruises to her body, a
significant burn injury to her right index finger, and serious internal abdominal
injuries. You were not charged with any offences in relation to any of these injuries.
[7] In relation to sentence the prosecution submit that I should take into account
not only the injuries which were the subject of the offences of which you have been
convicted but in addition all the other non-accidental injuries which Millie sustained
over the period October to December 2009. On that basis the prosecution contend
that there is present in your case the aggravating feature that:
“the murder was the culmination of cruel and violent
behaviour by the offender over a period of time.”
It is submitted on your behalf by Ms McDermott QC and Mr Sayers that it would be
inappropriate to do so. Reliance was placed on the decision in R v Oakes and others
[2012] EWCA Crim 2435. At paragraph [84] Lord Judge LCJ stated that:

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hilland's (Stephen) Application and in the matter of a decision of The Department of Justice
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
    • 10 Diciembre 2021
    ...(a): see Article 18 (4) (b). This is unsurprising as both pro visions are dealing with release of dangerous offenders. 9 See R v McCarney [2013 NICC 1. 11 may be released on the basis of an assessment of the risk of “serious harm” whereas DCS prisoners are treated differently as the test ap......
  • King v Sharyar Ali
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
    • 5 Abril 2023
    ...The prosecution clearly stated that the higher starting point in McCandless was applicable. Also, reference was made to R v McCarney [2013] NICC 1, R v Baird [2004] NILST 19, Attorney General’s Reference No 11 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim 843, Attorney General’s Reference [2016] EWCA Crim 2018,......
  • R v Martin Doherty
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
    • 26 Enero 2022
    ...on the date of sentencing. [19] The interplay between the ECS and the ICS has featured in several cases. The theme of both R v McCarney [2013] NICC 1 and R v Greatbanks [2013] NICC 9 is that the ECS should be preferred where it would achieve appropriate protection for the public against the......
  • R v McLaughlin (Kieran Edward)
    • United Kingdom
    • Crown Court (Northern Ireland)
    • 8 Junio 2015
    ...from the 8 serious harm identified above. The court considers there is much to be commended in the comment of Stephens J in R v McCarney [2013] NICC 1 at paragraph 42 where he said: “I consider that where there is a choice between an indeterminate custodial sentence and an extended custodia......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT