Queen v P
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Morgan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NICA 44 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 07 December 2010 |
| Year | 2010 |
- 1 -
Neutral Citation No [2010] NICA 44 Ref:
MOR8029
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
7/12/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
THE QUEEN
-v-
P
Defendant/Respondent
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, Higgins LJ and Coghlin LJ
________
MORGAN LCJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
[1] The appellant was returned for trial at Belfast Crown Court on two
counts of gross indecency with or towards a child and two counts of indecent
assault on a female. At his arraignment on 26 September 2008 he pleaded not
guilty to all counts. His trial took place between 2 June 2009 and 15 June 2009
before Her Honour Judge Philpott QC sitting with a jury. The jury returned a
verdict of guilty on all four counts. The appellant was sentenced on 27 August
2009 to a total of 3 years 6 months imprisonment. The learned trial judge also
made a Sexual Offences Prevention Order in respect of the appellant on 16
September 2009. The appellant lodged a notice of appeal against conviction
dated 13 October 2009 and on 4 March 2010 Deeny J, acting as the single
judge, granted leave to appeal against conviction. The principle issues in the
appeal are delay giving rise to abuse of process, the application of the
Galbraith guidance on whether to grant a direction and the need to avoid
interruptions to counsel’s closing speech.
Background
[2] The appellant was friendly with the complainants’ father when he (the
father) was married to the complainants’ mother and had known the
complainants since they were born. The appellant would have visited their
house on occasions. The complainants’ parents separated and some time after
this the appellant began a relationship with the complainants’ mother. This
relationship lasted from 1990 to 1992. The appellant lived in the family home
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
R v Bell (Ivor Malachy)
...have repeatedly endorsed the view that the imposition of a stay is an exceptional course – see DPP’s Application [1989] NI 106; R v P [2010] NICA 44 and R v McNally and McManus [2009] NICA 3. [46] These authorities related to criminal trials and the well-established principles contained the......
- R v Mawhinney
-
R v Hutchings (Denis)
...have repeatedly endorsed the view that the imposition of a stay is an exceptional course – see Re DPP’s Application [1999] NI 106; R v P [2010] NICA 44 and R v McNally and McManus, to which I have referred above. Can the defendant receive a fair trial? [33] I turn now to consider the first ......
-
Queen v (1) SOLDIER A (2) SOLDIER C
...have repeatedly endorsed the view that the imposition of a stay is an exceptional course – see Re DPP’s Application [1999] NI 106; R v P [2010] NICA 44 and R v McNally and McManus, to which I have referred above.” [113] As the cases before the court raise particular issues, which have been ......
Request a trial to view additional results