The King v Niall Lehd
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICA 51 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 23 September 2022 |
1
wwNeutral Citation No: [2022] NICA 51
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11933
ICOS No: 20/050949
Delivered: 23/09/2022
IN HIS MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
ON APPEAL FROM BELFAST CROWN COURT
_________
THE KING
-v-
NIALL LEHD
________
Before: McCloskey LJ, Maguire LJ and Scoffield J
_________
Representation
Prosecution: Mr Ciaran Murphy KC and Mr David Russell, of counsel (instructed
by the Public Prosecution Service)
Appellant: Mr Tim Moloney KC and Mr Conor O’Kane, of counsel (instructed
by Carlin Solicitors)
________
McCLOSKEY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Index
Subject Paragraph No
Introduction 1
Prosecution and Trial 2-4
Leave to Appeal 5
Basis of Plea 6-12
The Sentencing Equation 13-14
R v Kahar [2016] EWCA CRIM 568 15-22
The Sentencing Council Guideline 23-26
Previous Decisions of This Court 35-45
The Sentencing of Mr M 46-48
First Ground of Appeal: Manifestly Excessive Sentence 49-57
Ground One Determined 58-73
2
Second Ground of Appeal: Dangerousness 74-87
Section 5 Offences: NI Guidelines 88-89
Conclusion 90
Introduction
[1] This appeal against sentence by Niall Lehd (the “appellant”), in respect
whereof leave to proceed has been granted by the single judge, challenges an
extended custodial sentence (“ECS”) of 24 years imprisonment, augmented by an
extension period of five years, imposed on him having pleaded guilty to a single
offence of preparation of acts of terrorism contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism
Act 2006 (the “2006 Act”).
Prosecution and Trial
[2] The prosecution of the appellant was based on an indictment comprising five
counts. In addition to the count noted in para [1] above, there were four counts of
possessing explosives with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property
contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (the “1883 Act”).
These were “left on the books.” As appears from para [1] above, the distinctive
feature of the first count, to which the appellant’s plea of guilty was confined, was its
breadth (verbatim per the indictment): manufacturing explosive substances,
constructing explosive devices, creating and maintaining hides to store explosive
substances, explosive devices, components for explosive devices, imitation firearm
and ammunition, tools and resources used during the construction of explosive
devices and other assorted items linked to the preparation of an act of terrorism,
purchasing or otherwise obtaining chemicals and components to be used in the
manufacture of explosive substances and the construction of explosive devices, and
conducting research resulting in the creation of a library of documents providing
specified information. The second stand out feature of this count is that all of its
elements concerned preparatory acts and conduct. This count was designed to
encompass the totality of the appellant’s offending.
[3] The timeline of the prosecution as agreed between the parties was this:
• 28 February 2013 – appellant arrested in Larne after presenting himself to
police
• 2 March 2013 – appellant charged with Possession of Explosives
• 1 July 2014 – appellant received 6 year sentence (3 years in custody and 3
years on licence)
• 2 March 2016 – appellant released on licence
3
• 29 August 2016 – appellant arrested on suspicion of section 41 of Terrorism
Act
• 5 September 2016 – appellant released unconditionally
• 8 March 2018 – appellant’s licence suspended by the Secretary of State
• 18 December 2018 – appellant re-arrested following SOCPA statements by
CM
• 14 February 2019 – PCNI recommended appellant’s re-release on licence
• 2 March 2019 – appellant released on High Court Bail to await trial
• 6 August 2020 – PE at Ballymena Magistrates’ court
• 5 November 2020 – No Bill application
• 23 November 2020 – ruling on No Bill application and Not Guilty
Arraignment
• 30 November 2020 – defence statement
• 27 January 2021 trial date set for 19 May 2021
• 24 February 2021 mention for disclosure update
• 15 March 2021 CM SOCPA interviews disclosed
• 26 March 2021 case mentioned trial date confirmed
• 16 April 2021 case mentioned
• 30 April 2021 disclosure of Central Criminal court papers
• 7 May 2021 section 8 disclosure application
• 13 May 2021 section 8 disclosure application
• 18 May 2021 trial date vacated provisionally listed 26 May
• 25 May counsel to counsel discussions commenced
• 1 June 2021 Trial date – agreed Basis of Plea followed by Re-Arraignment on
Count 1 (amended). Counts 2 - 5 left on the Books
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
HM Advocate v LB
...257; [1984] RTR 315; [1984] Crim LR 502 R v Guilfoyle [1973] 2 All ER 844; 57 Cr App R 549; [1973] RTR 272; [1973] Crim LR 377 R v Lehd [2022] NICA 51 R v Smith [2011] EWCA Crim 1772; [2012] 1 WLR 1316; [2012] 1 All ER 451; [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 82; [2011] Crim LR 967 Ramage v HM Advocate 1......
-
King v (1) David Christopher Gill (2) Lesley Ann Dodds (3) William Gill (4) Andrew Leslie (5) Jonathan Richard Leslie Montgomery
...to culpability. However, I found these of no real assistance, bearing in mind the recent comments of the Court of Appeal in R v Lehd [2022] NICA 51, particularly at para [67]. Much of the debate about the experts’ reports in Dodds’ case was fixated on the question of whether her responsibil......