R v McLernon
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1992 |
| Date | 01 January 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
- Silence of accused - Possession of firearms with intent - House where weapons found visited by accused for short period - Discretion of the trial judge -Whether judge erred in holding that the accused had a case to answer or in drawing inferences from the failure of the accused to give an explanation -Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1978 (c. 5), s. 9 - Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, 1988 (S.I. No. 1987, N.I. 20), arts. 3, 4.
The appellant and his three co-accused were arrested on suspicion of involvement in acts of terrorism following police surveillance of their movements to and from a house in Ferry Road, Coalisland. The house was searched by the police and various firearms, ammunition and items of military equipment were found concealed in it. The appellant was interviewed by police detectives on a number of occasions during the days following his arrest and on each occasion he was cautioned under art. 3 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, 1988, which provided that where, on being questioned by a police constable, an accused failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence which he could reasonably be expected to mention, the court could draw an inference from such a failure. The appellant was questioned closely about the events leading to his arrest, his activities with the co-accused and his involvement with the items found in the house but he remained silent throughout the interviews. After being moved to a prison in Belfast he voluntarily made a handwritten statement, stating that he had called at the house to deliver a message to the occupant. He denied any knowledge of the weapons or ammunition found at the house but declined to sign the statement or elaborate on it in response to further police questions. Forensic evidence connected the three co-accused with the items found at the house, but not the appellant. The appellant and his three co-accused were charged on indictment with four offences, including possession of firearms and ammunition with intent. The trial judge ruled that the appellant had no case to answer on the other three charges but rejected a submission by the appellant that he had no case to answer on the possession charge and called on him to give evidence pursuant to art. 4 of the 1988 Order, which provided that the court could draw an inference from his failure to do so. The appellant declined to give evidence and was then convicted on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Robert Webber, Paul Ashton, Paul Steven Lyons
...article 3 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1987) was in terms very similar to what is now section 34. In R v McLernon [1992] NI 168 it was argued that the words "any fact relied on in his defence" in that article meant that it could apply only where a fact wh......
-
Queen v Damien Fennell
...the Recorder HHJ McFarland quoted from earlier authorities from our Court of Appeal (R v Davison & Others [2008] NICC 28 and R v McLernon [1992] NI 168) which in turn quoted with approval from an unnamed Australian case where the judge observed: “It is proper that a court should regard the ......
-
R v Cowan
...drawing an adverse inference. Nor would it be wise even to give examples as each case must turn on its own facts. As Kelly LJ said in McLernon 1990, 10 N.I.J.B. 91 (a Northern Ireland case concerning provisions of Article 4 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which are i......
-
Queen v Raymond James Craig McMaster
...on the prosecution. [21] Whether the statutory assumption is to be applied is a matter for the discretion of the Court. In R v McLernon (1992) NI 168 at 177 - 178 Hutton LCJ discussed the statutory predecessors of Section 77, of which it can still be said that such a provision “….erodes the......
-
Subject Index
...176R v MacIver (1996) 153 NSR (2nd) .............119R v McLernon [1992] NI 168 ..........................5 2R v Makanjuola [1995] 3 All ER 730......... 1 39R v Mallott [1998] 1 SCR 123 .............. 84, 101R v Malone [1998] Crim LR 834.................... 18R v Marcus [2004] EWCA Crim 3387......
-
Drawing Inferences from Positive Suggestions Put to Witnesses: R v Webber
...does not testify or adduce any evidence at trial but merely4Ibid. at [16].5R v Gilbert (1977) 66 Cr App R 237 at p. 244.6R v McLernon [1992] NI 168. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 53DRAWING INFERENCES FROM POSITIVE SUGGESTIONS PUT TO WITNESSESputs the prosecution to proof.7 O......