The King v Joseph Joyce
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Keegan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NICA 67 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NICA 67
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: KEE12277
ICOS No: 22/041598/A01
Delivered: 25/10/2023
IN HIS MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT SITTING IN BELFAST
THE KING
v
JOSEPH JOYCE
___________
Mr Desmond Fahy KC with Mr Stephen Toal (instructed by Sheridan & Leonard
Solicitors) for the Appellant
Mr Barra McGrory KC with Ms Natalie Pinkerton (instructed by the Public Prosecution
Service) for the Respondent
___________
Before: Keegan LCJ, McCloskey LJ and Fowler J
___________
KEEGAN LCJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] This is a judgment to which all members of the court have contributed.
[2] We are concerned with an appeal against conviction which is brought by the
above appellant with leave of the single judge following a trial before Mr Justice
Rooney (“the trial judge”). The conviction followed a jury trial and a guilty verdict
delivered on 20 June 2022 in relation to the following offences:
(i) Murder.
(ii) Section 18 grievous bodily harm with intent.
(iii) Possession of an offensive weapon.
(iv) Affray.
2
(v) A second offence of possession of a weapon in a public place.
[3] The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment in relation to the headline
offence of murder, with a period of 10 years set before he is eligible for release by the
Parole Commissioners. All other sentences on the other offences were ordered to run
concurrently. There is no appeal against sentence.
[4] Three grounds of appeal are advanced against conviction may be summarised
as follows:
(i) That the trial judge erred in not leaving the alternative verdict of manslaughter
to the jury.
(ii) That the trial judge was materially misled when he made his ruling to treat a
witness, Jonathan Thompson (“JT”), as hostile and hence he erred in that
determination.
(iii) That the trial judge erred in allowing bad character evidence that the appellant
was “the King of the Travellers” to go before the jury.
which has been consistently applied by our courts, Kerr LCJ set out the principles to
be applied by the Court of Appeal when considering appeals against conviction as
follows:
“1. The Court of Appeal should concentrate on the
single and simple question ‘does it think that the
verdict is unsafe?’
2. This exercise does not involve trying the case again.
Rather it requires the court, where conviction has
followed trial and no fresh evidence has been
introduced on the appeal, to examine the evidence
given at trial and to gauge the safety of the verdict
against that background.
3. The court should eschew speculation as to what
may have influenced the jury to its verdict.
4. The Court of Appeal must be persuaded that the
verdict is unsafe but if, having considered the
evidence, the court has a significant sense of unease
about the correctness of the verdict based on a
reasoned analysis of the evidence, it should allow
the appeal.”
3
[6] We proceed to apply these appellate principles in undertaking our adjudication
of the three grounds of appeal referred to above. In doing so, we record at the outset
that no criticism is made of the legal directions given by the trial judge or the judge’s
charge.
Background facts
[7] It is common case and was known to all, including the jury, that both the
appellant and the deceased are/were members of the travelling community as are
their families.
[8] This case involves an incident which occurred in Enniskillen, Co Fermanagh
on 11 April 2020. The appellant lived at an end house of the cul-de-sac called
Coolcullen Meadows which bordered Drumawill Gardens in Enniskillen where the
deceased’s family lived. There was evidence to the effect that a party was going on
towards the back of the appellant’s home which came from an adjoining property.
That party was at the home of the McDonagh family who lived there. What ensued on
the street outside the appellant’s property, was a verbal and physical confrontation
between the appellant on the one hand and John Paul McDonagh, Gerard McDonagh
and Jimmy McDonagh on the other hand. John Paul McDonagh ultimately died as a
result of the altercation.
[9] Prior to the parties’ interaction at the front of the appellant’s property there had
been a verbal altercation at the rear of the property. This resulted in the interface
between the two families. It was not possible to determine with certainty who had
instigated the altercation. CCTV footage was available of the events that took place
and formed a pivotal aspect of the trial. We have also viewed the CCTV footage in the
course of this appeal.
Summary of the CCTV evidence
[10] The single judge has helpfully summarised the CCTV in a way that we consider
encapsulates the substance of it and which we adopt as follows:
“(i) The appellant is seen standing on the road outside
his property with an item in his hands variously
described as a slash hook, bill hook or scythe.
(ii) The appellant’s children can be seen running into
Charlie Rose Noble’s (a neighbour) house.
(iii) John Paul McDonagh, Gerry McDonagh and Jimmy
McDonagh are observed running towards the
appellant. John Paul McDonagh is holding a garden
hoe above his head; Jimmy McDonagh has a long
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
The King v John Miller
...leave a partial defence of loss of control [103] This issue has recently been considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Joyce [2023] NICA 67. Section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides for a partial defence to murder of loss of control. [104] It is apparent from the......