In the matter of an application by John Boyle for Judicial Review of the Decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Kerr LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] NICA 16 |
| Date | 28 April 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2006] NICA 16
Ref:
KERF5552
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
28/04/2006
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JOHN BOYLE FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS
________
Before Kerr LCJ, Campbell LJ and McLaughlin J
________
KERR LCJ
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by John Boyle from the decision of Girvan J given on 29
September 2004 dismissing an application for judicial review of the decision
of the Director of Public Prosecutions whereby he refused to provide detailed
reasons for his decision not to prosecute two police officers for perjury.
Background
[2] On 14 October 1977 Mr Boyle was convicted by His Honour Judge Brown
QC sitting without a jury on one count of possession of firearms and
ammunition with intent to endanger life and another count of membership of
a proscribed organisation. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on
the first count and to two years concurrent on the second count. A suspended
sentence of two years imprisonment that had been imposed on 6 May 1975
was invoked and ordered to run consecutively to the other terms of
imprisonment.
[3] The appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed on
13 January 1978. On 27 April 2001 the Criminal Cases Review Commission
(CCRC) referred the matter to the Court of Appeal on the basis of new
evidence that had been made available by scientific developments in
electrostatic detection apparatus (ESDA) testing techniques. On 29 April 2003
the Court of Appeal quashed Mr Boyle’s convictions. By that time, of course,
Mr Boyle had already served the period of imprisonment that had been
imposed on the firearms and membership charges.
2
[4] The allegation against Mr Boyle was that he had taken part in an IRA gun
attack on police officers in Franklin Street, Belfast, on 27 May 1976. The case
against him was based exclusively on admissions, said to have been made by
him to two police officers during interviews that took place on 8 and 9 March
1977, to the effect that he had been giving cover to the gunman who had fired
on the police officers. He denied that he had been involved in the actual
firing of shots.
[5] In delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal quashing the
convictions Carswell LCJ identified the fifth interview as that during which
the relevant admissions were made. The admissions relied on by the Crown
during the trial were contained in the notes of that interview and, according
to the text of those notes, were as follows: -
“We continued to question subject about his
admissions to us, about being in the Provisionals
and he agreed and said ‘I am making no
statement’. When asked why he did not want to
make a statement to clear the whole lot up he
replied ‘I can’t make a statement I am an officer’.
We continued to question the subject and he then
said ‘Sure you said yesterday that I am the QM’.
When the subject was asked if this was true he
agreed.
…
We continued to question subject about this
incident and he admitted ‘I only done cover with a
pistol while another man fired an Armalite’.”
[6] Mr Boyle has always disputed that he made any admissions. He claimed
that the police officers had written down things that he had not said. These
claims were denied by the police. During cross examination in the course of
the trial the two officers who had made a record of the fifth interview asserted
vigorously that the notes of all interviews conducted by them (including
interview five) had been made at the time that the interviews took place.
They denied that notes had been prepared after the interview of the appellant.
[7] Kim Harry Hughes, a forensic scientist, provided a report on the ESDA
examination of the interview notes. Carswell LCJ summarised the crucial part
of the report in the following passage from the judgment of the Court of
Appeal that quashed the appellant’s conviction:-
“Having considered his report we are content to
accept it, as agreed by the Crown and, having
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
In the matter of an application by Lawrence Kincaid for Judicial Review
...that the policy was neither irrational nor aberrant and that conclusion was followed and applied in the more recent case of Boyle v DPP [2006] NICA 16. In the present application the applicant contended that since his article 2 rights were engaged, Adams could not be regarded as a binding a......
-
Application by Anne Neill for Judicial Review
...the upholding of that policy by the Court of Appeal in Adams’ Application [2001] NI 1 and the following of that decision in Boyle v. DPP [2006] NICA 16. Kincaid contended that his rights under Article 2 of the European Convention were engaged and the decision in Adams Application could not ......
-
DB CDLA 1121 2015
...in respect of the inquisitorial nature of the tribunal, and in his references to the decision in Mongan –v- Dept for Social Development [2006] NICA 16, a decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, which has echoes in the later case in the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in Se......
-
DB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA)
...in respect of the inquisitorial nature of the tribunal, and in his references to the decision in Mongan –v- Dept for Social Development [2006] NICA 16, a decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, which has echoes in the later case in the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in Se......
Request a trial to view additional results