Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by the prosecution to vary the place of trial from Newry Crown Court in the division of Armagh and South Down to Belfast Crown Court in the division of Belfast, pursuant to section 48 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The defendants are charged with multiple counts of cheating the revenue, arising from investigations into alleged undisclosed offshore accounts and trusts involving significant sums of money and tax liabilities. The case has experienced considerable delay, with applications including an abuse of process claim by the defendants on grounds of delay, and requests for advance indication of sentence. The defendants are prominent businessmen with substantial local business interests and community standing. The court had to consider the convenience of parties and witnesses, the expediting of the trial, and the ability to secure a fair trial in the original venue, among other procedural matters.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Crown Court should exercise its discretion under section 48(3) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to vary the place of trial from the division of Armagh and South Down to another venue.
- Whether a fair trial can be achieved in the original venue given the defendants' prominence and community connections.
- The relevance and weight to be given to the convenience of the defence, prosecution, and witnesses, as well as the expediting of the trial.
- The appropriateness of venue based on available court facilities, including information technology for managing voluminous evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution's Arguments
- The defendants are well-known businessmen in the division, owning substantial hotels and a building firm with many employees, making it unlikely a jury could be empanelled without connections to them.
- The defendants are main sponsors of Gaelic football in the division, potentially biasing jurors in their favor.
- Witnesses may be travelling from locations such as Jersey, England, and the Isle of Man, making Belfast a more convenient venue.
- The trial involves voluminous evidence requiring modern information technology equipment for presentation, which Newry Crown Court lacks but Belfast Crown Court possesses.
- Recent precedent shows that trials involving defendants and witnesses from the Newry area have been successfully conducted in Coleraine.
Defendants' Arguments
- A fair jury can be selected in the original division, particularly if the jury panel size is increased and preliminary questions are used to eliminate bias.
- Jurors generally act responsibly and base verdicts on evidence heard in court, not external influences.
- Changing venue to Belfast or Coleraine would cause considerable inconvenience and physical pressure on the defendants, especially given their age and health conditions.
- The defendants play active roles in their businesses and traveling would impose additional burdens.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Morgan [1998] NIJB 52 |
Established that the Crown Court has broader discretion than Magistrates' Court to vary place of trial, including considerations of fairness and justice beyond statutory convenience factors. |
The court relied on this precedent to assert jurisdiction to vary the venue if a fair trial cannot be had at the Magistrates' Court designated venue. |
| R v Fegan & Ors (Unreported) |
Emphasized the requirement under Article 6 for an independent and impartial tribunal and the modern approach to jury selection not based on local knowledge. |
The court referenced this decision to support the principle that jurors must be independent and impartial, justifying venue change if local jurors could be biased. |
| R v Kidd [1995] Crim LR 406 |
Confirmed that juries are expected to decide cases on evidence presented in court rather than external influences such as media or community connections. |
The defendants cited this to argue that jurors would act responsibly and fairly despite local connections. |
| R v Hugh Morgan & Morgan Fuels and Lubes Limited [1998] NIJB 52 |
Venue varied due to risk of juror predisposition arising from defendant's sponsorship of popular local sport, highlighting potential juror bias. |
The court drew analogy to this case, considering the defendants' sponsorship of Gaelic football as one factor among others supporting venue change. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by considering the statutory framework under section 48 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, noting that while Magistrates' Courts must consider convenience, expedition, and directions from the Lord Chancellor, the Crown Court's discretion under subsection (3) is wider and includes considerations of justice and fairness.
The court acknowledged the defendants' significant local prominence through their business enterprises and community involvement, including sponsorship of popular local sports, which creates a substantial risk that jurors from the original division may be biased, particularly favorably disposed toward the defendants. The court also considered a lesser risk of jurors being predisposed against the defendants.
The court evaluated the convenience of witnesses and the availability of suitable court facilities, including necessary information technology for handling extensive documentary evidence. While Newry Courthouse lacked such facilities and was unavailable for the proposed trial date, Armagh Courthouse was available and equipped. Despite this, the court concluded that a fair trial could not be assured within the division of Armagh and South Down due to the defendants' prominence and community connections.
Given Belfast Crown Court's unavailability for the trial date, the court selected Coleraine Courthouse, which has the required technology and availability, despite increased inconvenience to the defence and witnesses. The court balanced this inconvenience against the need to secure a fair and expeditious trial, noting that the defendants had the financial means to mitigate travel and accommodation burdens and could delegate business responsibilities during the trial.
The court also considered the history of delays and outstanding applications but emphasized the importance of proceeding expeditiously. It rejected the defence request for adjournment based on counsel availability to avoid further delay.
Holding and Implications
The court GRANTED the prosecution's application to vary the place of trial from Newry Crown Court in the division of Armagh and South Down to Coleraine Courthouse in the division of Antrim, with the trial fixed to commence on 10 September 2007.
The direct effect of this decision is to relocate the trial to a venue deemed capable of ensuring a fair trial given the defendants' local prominence and community connections, the availability of appropriate court facilities, and the need for expedition. The court recognized the increased inconvenience to the defence and witnesses but considered these outweighed by the necessity of fairness and practicality. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing principles concerning venue variation and fair trial rights under Article 6.