Boyle's (John) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Weatherup J |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] NIQB 88 |
| Date | 24 October 2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2007 |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2007] NIQB 88 Ref:
WEAC5949
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
24/10/2007
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
AN APPLICATION BY JOHN BOYLE
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
WEATHERUP J
The application
[1] This is an application for a judicial review of a decision of the Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland refusing an award of compensation to the
applicant under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or under the ex
gratia scheme, further to the quashing of the applicant’s convictions. Mr
O’Donoghue QC and Mr Green appeared for the applicant and Mr
McCloskey QC and Mr Maguire QC appeared for the respondent.
The criminal proceedings
[2] On 14 October 1977 at Belfast City Commission before His Honour
Judge Brown QC the applicant was convicted of possession of firearms and
ammunitions with intend to endanger life contrary to Section 14 of the
Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and of membership of a proscribed
organisation namely the Provisional IRA contrary to Section 19(1)(a) of the
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. The applicant was
sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on the first count, two years
imprisonment on the second count to run concurrently and a suspended
sentence of 2 years imprisonment passed on 25 October 1974 was
implemented consecutively. The applicant’s total period of imprisonment was
12 years.
2
[3] The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence and on 13
January 1978 his appeal against conviction was dismissed and his appeal
against sentence was withdrawn. The applicant served his sentence of
imprisonment. On 14 December 1999 the applicant applied to the Criminal
Cases Review Commission for a review of his conviction and by a Statement
of Reasons dated 17 April 2001 the Criminal Cases Review Commission
referred the applicant’s conviction to the Court of Appeal. In a judgment in R
v John Joseph Boyle delivered on 29 April 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed
the applicant’s conviction.
[4] The case against the applicant at trial was that he took part in a
Provisional IRA attack on police officers in Belfast on 27 May 1976. The
evidence against the applicant was based on admissions that the applicant was
alleged to have made to two police officers in the course of interviews. Written
notes of the interviews were made by the interviewing officers. The notes of
one of the interviews contained the admission by the applicant that he was an
officer and quartermaster in the Provisional IRA and that in the attack on the
police officers he had provided cover with a pistol while another man had fired
an armalite. The applicant denied that he had made such admissions. The
evidence of the interviewing officers was that the notes of interview recording
the admissions were made during the course of the interview with the
applicant and that the applicant had made the admissions as recorded in the
notes. The trial judge accepted the evidence of the interviewing officers and
rejected the denials of the applicant.
[5] The applicant’s case was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the
Criminal Cases Review Commission after tests had been conducted on the
interview notes by the ESDA process. The result of that process was that Mr
Hughes, Forensic Scientist, concluded that there had been another version of
the interview notes of interview five, being the interview at which the applicant
was alleged to have made the admissions.
[6] The Court of Appeal, at paragraphs [5] to [9] of the judgment,
considered it to be of “substantial significance” that there were verbal
differences between the recorded interview and the impressions found by Mr
Hughes on examination so that “…. they vary in certain minor respects and
wording which cannot be accounted for, in our opinion, by anything appearing
or explicable from the impressions and accordingly we accept the conclusion
that Mr Hughes advanced that there appears to have been a different version of
interview five in existence at some time” (paragraph [5]). As the interviewing
officers had committed themselves in evidence to saying that the interview
notes were taken at the time of the interview the Court of Appeal stated that
their evidence in that regard “cannot be correct” (paragraph [7]). Accordingly
the question arose as to whether the credibility of the interviewing officers
could have been attacked had this been known at the trial. Carswell LCJ
delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal stated –
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice; Re McCartney & McDermott
...not satisfied. It was not, therefore, necessary to choose between the interpretations of Lord Bingham and Lord Steyn. 31 The next case is re Boyle [2007] NIQB 88. A conviction had relied on admissions which police officers said had been recorded contemporaneously in notes of interviews. ESD......
-
R Ismail Ali, Ian Lawless, Barry George, Kevin Dennis, Justin Tunbridge v Secretary of State for Justice
...UKSC 8 at [27] per Baroness Hale) and is more like the question whether a person is a "child in need": ibid. at [26]. The Supreme Court in A'scase treated the first but not the second question as one of jurisdictional fact. It did not so treat the second question because it is an evaluative......
-
R (Siddall) v Secretary of State for Justice
...Department [2007] EWHC 1855 (Admin), R. (Harris) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 3218 (Admin) and re Boyle [2007] NIQB 88).” 64. With the leave of the single judge, Mr Siddall challenges that decision primarily on the grounds that he should not have been convicted......