Arthurs’ (Brian and Paula) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Girvan LJ |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NIQB 75 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 30 June 2010 |
| Year | 2010 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NIQB 75 Ref:
GIR7890
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
30/06/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Arthurs’ (Brian and Paula) Application [2010] NIQB 75
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BRIAN AND
PAULA ARTHURS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
________
Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Weatherup J
________
GIRVAN LJ
Introduction
[1] In these proceedings the applicants Brian and Paula Arthurs seek
judicial review of a decision made by the Director of Public Prosecutions in
Northern Ireland (“the Director”) on 16 March 2009 whereby he certified that
the trial of applicants be conducted without a jury.
[2] The applicants are charged with a number of criminal offences
involving crimes of dishonesty in dealing with the proceeds of crime. They
were returned for trial on 25 February 2009. The indictment on which they
stand trial involves a range of counts. These allege possession of criminal
property, contrary to section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
obtaining money transfers by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft
Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; obtaining services by deception, contrary to
article 3(1) of the Theft (Northern Ireland) Order 1978; converting criminal
property contrary to section 327(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; and
possession of criminal property contrary to section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of
Crime Act 2002.
2
[3] Mr Hussain QC appeared with Mr Squires and Miss Doherty on behalf
of the applicants. Mr Maguire QC and Mr Scoffield appeared on behalf of the
Director. Mr Perry QC appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland. The court also has the benefit of written submissions from
British Irish Rights Watch who were given leave to intervene on 15 January
2010.
The relevant statutory provisions
[4] The Director’s decision to certify that the trial be conducted without a
jury was made under section 1 of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland)
Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”).
[5] So far as material section 1 is in the following terms:
“(1) This section applies in relation to a person
charged with one or more indictable offences (“the
defendant”).
(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions for
Northern Ireland may issue a certificate that any trial
on indictment of the defendant (and of any person
committed for trial with the defendant) is to be
conducted without a jury if –
(a) he suspects that any of the following
conditions is met, and
(b) he is satisfied that in view of this there is a risk
that the administration of justice might be
impaired if the trial were to be conducted with
a jury.
(3) Condition 1 is that the defendant is, or is an
associate (see subsection (9)) of, a person who –
(a) is a member of a proscribed organisation (see
subsection (10)), or
(b) has at any time been a member of an
organisation that was, at that time, a
proscribed organisation.
(4) Condition 2 is that –
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Hutchings' (Dennis) Application
...assertions, we draw attention to an important authority in the context overall of this case namely Arthurs’ (Brian and Paula) Application [2010] NIQB 75 in which a Divisional Court in Northern Ireland addressed this legislation. (“the Arthurs’ case”). [17] The background to the relevant sta......
-
An application by Dennis Hutchings for Judicial Review
...this was at odds with the judgment of the Divisional Court in an earlier Northern Ireland case, Arthurs' (Brian and Paula) Application [2010] NIQB 75 where at para 31, Girvan LJ had said, “[t]he strong presumption that a right to jury trial is not intended to be taken away will … lead to a ......
-
Tong Ying Kit v Secretary For Justice
...not in all circumstances render judicial review impermissible, it signifies a further reason for reticence.” 60. In Arthurs’ Application [2010] NIQB 75, the applicants sought judicial review of a decision made by the Director of Public Prosecutions whereby he certified that their trial be c......
-
Tong Ying Kit v Secretary For Justice
...Form 86, [29] [39] (2005) 8 HKCFAR 304, which is about BL 103. [40] (2011) 14 HKCFAR 754, at [57]-[63], which is about BL 136(1). [41] [2010] NIQB 75 [42] [2004] NI 367 [43] HCAL 2882/2018 & HCAL 687/2019; [2019] HKCFI 2215, at [22] – [39] [44] [2018] 1 HKLRD 523 [45] [1995] 1 Cr App R 136 ......