Factual and Procedural Background
On 19 March 1999, the Appellants were convicted at Crown Court by the presiding Judge sitting without a jury under emergency legislation. The Defendant Caraher was convicted of possession of rifles and ammunition with intent to endanger life, possession of property connected with terrorism, possession of articles useful to terrorists, and conspiracy to murder, related to an arms find at a farm complex on 10 April 1997. He was also convicted of the attempted murder of a police constable on 29 March 1997. The Defendant McGinn was convicted of the same offences as Caraher concerning the arms find, in addition to three murders and other serious terrorist offences. Caraher received a total sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, and McGinn received three life sentences plus fixed terms ranging from 20 to 7 years. Both Defendants appealed against their convictions and sentences.
The arms find involved two adjoining farm properties near a rural area, where soldiers and police discovered weapons, vehicles modified for sniper use, ammunition, and related equipment concealed in a cattle trailer and barn. Multiple individuals including the Defendants were found at the scene. Forensic evidence linked the Defendants to the weapons and vehicles. The trial judge concluded that the totality of evidence overwhelmingly implicated the Defendants in a terrorist operation.
Regarding the attempted murder, the court found that the Defendant Caraher was the gunman who fired a high-velocity rifle shot that wounded a police constable near a rural police station. Footprints matching Caraher’s boots were found on a dog kennel roof from which the shooting occurred. The Defendants’ confessions and interviews, particularly those of McGinn, were scrutinized with regard to their admissibility and compliance with procedural safeguards.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the convictions based on circumstantial and forensic evidence relating to the arms find were safe and supported by the evidence.
- Whether the evidence established that the Defendant Caraher was the gunman in the attempted murder of the police constable.
- Whether the confessions made by the Defendant McGinn during police interviews were admissible, considering alleged breaches of the Codes of Practice and the exercise of judicial discretion under the relevant emergency provisions.
- Whether the sentences imposed on the Defendants were appropriate and should be upheld.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Caraher challenged the sufficiency and weight of circumstantial evidence linking him to the arms find, particularly the physical proximity to the barn and vehicles.
- Caraher disputed the accuracy of the identification of footprints on the dog kennel roof and contended that the Crown failed to prove he was the gunman in the attempted murder.
- McGinn argued that the confessions should have been excluded due to substantial breaches of the Codes of Practice, including failure to caution regarding admissions unrelated to the original arrest and manipulation of interview procedures.
- Caraher contended that the trial judge failed to indicate the relative weight of various factors relied upon to establish guilt in the arms find case.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Crown maintained that the totality of the circumstantial and forensic evidence overwhelmingly established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Crown argued that the absence of forensic evidence at the shooting scene was not determinative, given the outdoor nature of the shooting and common terrorist practices of removing cartridge cases.
- The Crown submitted that the breaches of the Codes of Practice in McGinn’s interviews did not render the confessions inadmissible, given the circumstances and the Defendants’ own conduct during interviews.
- The Crown contended that the trial judge properly exercised judicial discretion in admitting evidence and that the convictions and sentences should be upheld.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Thain (1985) 11 NIJB 31 |
Judicial reasoning in Diplock court judgments need not explicitly weigh all factors or state their relative importance. |
The court relied on this to reject the appellant’s argument that the trial judge failed to specify the weight of factors leading to conviction. |
| R v Gibson and Lewis (1986) NIJB 1 |
Effect of invalidating a main reason for conviction in a Diplock Court judgment and test for safety of conviction. |
The court applied the principle to assess whether the conviction was safe despite one material factor being invalidated. |
| R v Walsh (1990) 91 Cr App R 161 |
Fairness and exclusion of evidence due to breaches of Codes of Practice under PACE. |
Guided the court’s assessment of whether breaches of procedural codes warranted exclusion of confessions. |
| R v McKeown (1998, unreported) |
Exercise of judicial discretion under Emergency Provisions Acts to exclude evidence due to breaches of Codes. |
Referenced for the standard of review and judicial discretion in admitting evidence obtained with procedural breaches. |
| R v Crooks and others (1998, unreported) |
Similar to McKeown, on judicial discretion and procedural fairness. |
Supported the approach to discretion under emergency legislation. |
| R v Howell [1987] 5 NIJB 10 |
Principles guiding the exercise of discretion and fairness under Emergency Provisions Acts. |
Informed the court’s emphasis on fairness in admitting confessional evidence. |
| R v Keenan [1990] 2 QB 54 |
Fairness and discretion in admitting confessions with procedural irregularities. |
Used to assess fairness in the context of breaches of Codes. |
| R v Rennie (1982) 74 Cr App R 207 |
Confessions often motivated by hope of mitigation or release; presence of such hope does not render confession inadmissible. |
Applied to reject argument that confessions were inadmissible due to hope of leniency. |
| R v Cowan [1987] NI 338 |
Standards for appellate review of judicial discretion. |
Referenced in assessing whether trial judge properly exercised discretion. |
| R v O'Halloran [1979] NI 45 |
Criteria for appellate interference with judicial discretion. |
Guided appellate review of trial judge’s exercise of discretion. |
| Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473 |
Residual ground for appellate intervention in judicial discretion to prevent injustice. |
Supported the court’s power to reverse discretion if injustice would result. |
| R v McCann (1991) 92 Cr App R 239 |
Context of appellate review of trial decisions including admission of evidence. |
Referenced for appellate approach to discretion. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully examined the totality of the evidence relating to the arms find, including the physical layout of the premises, the presence of weapons and modified vehicles, forensic links via fibres and clothing, and the conduct of the Defendants at the scene. The trial judge’s approach of considering both general and specific factors as strands in a "multi-stranded skein" was upheld. The court rejected the contention that the judge was required to assign explicit weightings to each factor in a Diplock judgment, citing established precedent.
Regarding Caraher, the court acknowledged some factors were less strong compared to others found in the barn but emphasized the forensic evidence linking him to McGinn and the vehicles, his flight from soldiers, false identity given, and failure to explain his presence. The court found the trial judge’s inference that Caraher was involved in the terrorist operation to be compelling and safe.
On the attempted murder, the court accepted the trial judge’s findings that the footprints on the dog kennel roof were conclusively those of Caraher’s boots and that he was the gunman who fired the shot intending to kill the police constable. Arguments challenging the location of the shooting and the evidence were rejected as speculative and unsupported.
In relation to McGinn’s confessions, the court identified serious breaches of the Codes of Practice, particularly the failure to caution McGinn regarding admissions unrelated to his original arrest and the maintenance of a "twin-track" note-taking system concealing admissions. While these breaches were caused in part by McGinn’s own requests, the court found a reasonable doubt existed whether McGinn would have made these admissions if properly cautioned and interviewed according to the Codes. The court did not find sufficient evidence that the breaches were part of a deliberate strategy to deceive, but nonetheless concluded that the admissions obtained in supplementary conversations should have been excluded.
Accordingly, the court quashed McGinn’s convictions on counts related to offences other than those connected to the arms find and conspiracy to murder, affirming only the convictions supported by admissible evidence.
The court reviewed the exercise of judicial discretion and found no misdirection or improper exercise by the trial judge in admitting evidence where appropriate, but concluded that exclusion was warranted in respect of certain confessional evidence due to breaches of caution and interview procedures.
Holding and Implications
The court UPHELD the convictions of the Defendants for possession of weapons and conspiracy to murder related to the arms find, and the conviction of the Defendant Caraher for the attempted murder of the police constable. The sentences of Caraher (25 years total) and McGinn (20 years total) were also upheld.
However, the court QUASHED the convictions of McGinn on counts relating to three murders and other serious offences that were founded solely on confessional evidence obtained in breach of the Codes of Practice.
The decision clarifies the application of procedural safeguards in emergency legislation contexts, emphasizing that breaches of caution and interview protocols can render confessions inadmissible, even in terrorism-related cases. The ruling underscores the necessity of fairness and proper administration of justice, balancing public safety concerns with individual rights.