R v Charles Malachy Oliver Pollock
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Kerr LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 2005,27 October 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] NICA 43 |
| Date | 27 October 2005 |
| Year | 2005 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2005] NICA 43
Ref:
KERF5400
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
27/10/2005
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
THE QUEEN
-v-
CHARLES MALACHY OLIVER POLLOCK
_________
Before Kerr LCJ and Sheil LJ
_________
KERR LCJ
[1] This is an application by Charles Malachy Oliver Pollock for leave to
appeal against a sentence of 12 years imposed on 21 October 2004 by Coghlin
J at Belfast Crown Court for the manslaughter of Constable Norman William
Thompson on 19 August 2000.
[2] The background to this case is set out in the judgment of this court on the
applicant’s appeal against conviction (reported at [2004] NICA 34) and need
not be repeated here at any length. Shortly stated, in the early hours of 19
August 2000 the applicant drove a motor car in various areas of west Belfast
and along the M1 Motorway at grossly excessive speeds and in an
outrageously dangerous fashion. He ignored repeated signals to stop and
defied all attempts by the police to bring his vehicle to a halt. This disgraceful
episode culminated in the applicant’s car colliding with and killing the police
officer who had thrown a ‘stinger’ device in its path.
[3] The applicant was convicted of the murder of Constable Thompson. That
conviction was quashed by this court for the reason that the court entertained
a doubt that the applicant intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to
the police officer. The court was in no doubt, however, about the wholly
reprehensible behaviour of the applicant on this occasion. We said this about
his driving: -
To continue reading
Request your trial
26 cases
-
R v Maughan and Another
...discount for the plea in the following terms: “Having regard to this aspect I take the view, in line with the observations of the court in R v Pollock [2005] NICA 43 that the maximum reduction is only due to those who admit their guilt when first confronted with the allegation. Mr O'Rourke......
-
R v Maughan and Another (No. 1)
...they remained in Mullingar. He then gave consideration to the appropriate discount for the guilty pleas. He referred to R v Pollock [2005] NICA 43 and stated that:- “The maximum reduction is only due to those who admit their guilt when first confronted with the allegation.” 15 The judge con......
-
Director of Public Prosecution's Reference (Number 6 of 2019) - Ian David Price
...the choice of sentence, see Attorney General’s Reference (No 7 of 2004) (Gary Edward Holmes) 2004 NICA 42 at paragraph [15]; R v Pollock [2005] NICA 43; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 6 of 2004) (Conor Gerard Doyle) [2004] NICA 33 at paragraph [37] and R v Keith McConnan [2017] NICA 40 a......
-
Queen v Michael Massey and Luke Hawkins
...and Wales both entitled “Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea” and dated respectively December 2004 and July 2007. In R v Pollock (2005) NICA 43 the Court of Appeal in relation to the December 2004 guideline stated: “[15] … This guidance as to how the discount should be handled, although......
Request a trial to view additional results