Stewart, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted by a jury at Coleraine Crown Court on 2 March 2011 of the murders of two individuals, hereinafter referred to as Victim A and Victim B. The trial judge imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 18 years. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 March 2011 relating to both convictions, but subsequently, through amended grounds of appeal and correspondence from her solicitors, limited the appeal to the conviction for the murder of Victim A only, effectively abandoning the appeal against the conviction for the murder of Victim B.

At the Court of Appeal hearing on 21 January 2013, counsel for the Appellant confirmed that there was no appeal against the conviction for the murder of Victim B, acknowledging that the Appellant had facilitated that murder. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for Victim A and noted the abandonment of the appeal relating to Victim B.

Later, on 19 February 2014, the Appellant filed further grounds of appeal concerning the conviction for Victim B, seeking to treat the prior abandonment as a nullity on the basis that she had not authorised it and had not been properly advised of its consequences. The current matter concerns whether the abandonment should be set aside and whether leave to appeal should be granted on fresh grounds relating to the trial judge's directions to the jury.

The factual background involves the deaths of Victim A and Victim B by carbon monoxide poisoning in May 1991. The bodies were found in a car in a garage. Years later, a third party, hereinafter referred to as Witness C, confessed to the murders and implicated the Appellant as a co-conspirator who facilitated the murders. Witness C pleaded guilty and testified against the Appellant at trial. The Appellant did not give evidence but gave multiple police interviews in which her accounts changed over time, eventually conceding knowledge and facilitation of the murder of Victim B.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant's prior abandonment of her appeal against the conviction for the murder of Victim B was a nullity due to lack of informed consent or proper advice.
2. Whether the Court should grant an extension of time and leave to appeal against the conviction for Victim B on fresh grounds.
3. Whether the trial judge erred by failing to properly direct the jury regarding the accomplice evidence (per R v Makanjuola), failing to give a complete good character direction, and failing to give an appropriate Lucas direction concerning the Appellant’s lies.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The abandonment of the appeal was not authorised by the Appellant and was made without her full understanding of its consequences, particularly that it would be treated as a dismissal of the appeal.
• The Appellant was not properly advised by her legal representatives regarding the abandonment and the grounds of appeal now advanced were not considered with her.
• The fresh grounds of appeal include alleged failures by the trial judge: to direct the jury in accordance with R v Makanjuola concerning accomplice evidence; to provide a complete good character direction including the propensity limb; and to give an appropriate Lucas direction about the significance of the Appellant’s lies.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The Appellant unequivocally abandoned the appeal against the conviction for Victim B, as evidenced by solicitor correspondence, skeleton arguments, and counsel’s concession in open court.
• All avenues of investigation and attempts to obtain fresh evidence had been exhausted, including through the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), and no arguable grounds for appeal existed.
• The Appellant's mind had gone with the decision to abandon the appeal, and the fresh grounds now advanced are without foundation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the concept of abandonment under Rule 16 of the Criminal Appeal (NI) Rules 1968 and relevant case law. It identified that abandonment is generally irrevocable unless the court treats the notice as a nullity, which requires that the abandonment was not a deliberate and informed decision by the appellant.

The court considered the evidence, including affidavits and solicitor notes, regarding whether the Appellant was properly advised and understood the consequences of abandonment. Although the Appellant was not expressly told abandonment equated to dismissal, the court found that her husband had been fully informed and was present during consultations. The court was satisfied that the Appellant accepted counsel’s advice that the appeal against the conviction for Victim B was groundless and that no arguable grounds existed.

The court concluded that the Appellant’s mind had gone with the abandonment, which was a rational decision given the lack of realistic grounds for appeal and the exhaustion of investigative avenues, including attempts to obtain fresh evidence through the CCRC.

Even assuming the abandonment were a nullity, the court found the fresh grounds of appeal to be without merit and rejected them. The court emphasized that counsel is not obliged to pursue unmeritorious or speculative grounds of appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court's final ruling was that the appeal against the conviction for the murder of Victim B was abandoned and therefore dismissed, and no grounds existed to declare the abandonment a nullity or to grant leave to appeal on fresh grounds.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant’s conviction for the murder of Victim B stands, and the appeal is conclusively dismissed. The court noted that no new precedent was established, reaffirming the established principles regarding abandonment and the finality of appeals.