Connor, R. v (Conviction)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted following a non-jury trial on 29 July 2020 of multiple offences related to terrorist activities, including the preparation of terrorist acts, causing explosions likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, and the attempted murder of a police constable. The offences occurred between February and May 2013. The convictions challenged on appeal relate specifically to causing an explosion on 16 May 2013 and the attempted murder on 28 May 2013.

Previously, the Appellant had pleaded guilty to related offences in 2017 and received an extended custodial sentence, but these convictions were quashed on appeal due to concerns over the guilty pleas, leading to a retrial. The current appeal follows this retrial.

The Director of Public Prosecutions referred the sentence imposed to the Court of Appeal, resulting in linked sentencing proceedings addressed separately.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in law by refusing the Appellant's application for a direction of no case to answer regarding the count of causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property on 16 May 2013.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in law in finding the Appellant guilty of the attempted murder of Constable Polley on 28 May 2013.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There was insufficient evidence that the explosion on 16 May 2013 was caused by a device likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, citing the absence of debris, damage, and the police officers' view that fireworks were involved.
• The Appellant contended that the evidence did not establish that she caused the explosion or intended to endanger life.
• Regarding the attempted murder charge, the Appellant argued that the court could not be sure she threw the pipe bombs, that the use of pipe bombs does not inevitably imply intent to kill, that the circumstances did not support an intent to kill, and that there was no immediate contextual evidence of such intent.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution presented a case based on a wealth of circumstantial, forensic, physical, and voice analysis evidence linking the Appellant to the preparation and deployment of pipe bombs on the relevant dates.
• The prosecution maintained that the Appellant was directly involved in the explosions and the hoax 999 calls made to lure police to the scenes.
• For the attempted murder charge, the prosecution argued that the Appellant either threw the pipe bombs herself or participated in a joint enterprise with others, emphasizing that it was not necessary to prove the exact role played, only willing participation with the necessary intent.
• The prosecution relied on evidence including CCTV footage, DNA on items found at the scene, electronic communications, and expert voice analysis supporting the Appellant’s involvement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Jones [2007] NICA 28	Consideration of evidence in cases involving explosions and related offences.	Referenced by the trial judge in assessing the nature of the explosion and evidence sufficiency.
R v Marcus [2013] NICA 60	Application of the "could well happen" test to determine sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.	The judge applied this test when evaluating evidence relating to the explosion on 16 May 2013.
R v Pollock [2007] NICA 34	Test for safety of conviction on appeal: whether the verdict is unsafe or there is a lurking doubt.	The Court of Appeal applied this test to assess the safety of the challenged convictions.
R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 1060	Test for no case to answer: whether evidence is so weak or discredited that no conviction could properly be made.	The trial judge applied the two-limb Galbraith test in refusing the no case submission.
Chief Constable of the PSNI v LO [2006] NICA 3	Application of no case to answer test in non-jury trials.	Guided the judge's approach in assessing whether evidence was sufficient to proceed in a non-jury trial.
R v Courtney [2007] NICA 6	Approach to circumstantial evidence and the necessity to consider all circumstances collectively.	The judge relied on the principle that circumstantial evidence forms a rope of several cords, not a chain broken by one link.
R v McConville and Wooton [2014] NICA 41	Correct approach to circumstantial evidence and participation in offences.	The prosecution and judge relied on this authority in concluding the Appellant's participation did not require proof of exact role but willing involvement.
R v McGreevy [1972] NI 125	Requirement to give considerable credence to circumstances pointing away from guilt.	The judge applied this principle by anxiously considering evidence inconsistent with guilt before reaching a verdict.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the extensive circumstantial, forensic, and voice analysis evidence linking the Appellant to both the preparation and deployment of pipe bombs on 16 and 28 May 2013. The trial judge's directions regarding the burden and standard of proof, the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, and the requirement to consider all evidence collectively were found to be correct and thoroughly applied.

Regarding the first ground of appeal, the trial judge properly applied the Galbraith test for no case to answer in a non-jury trial context, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. The judge considered the totality of evidence, including electronic communications, voice analysis, the Practice Run video, and the Appellant’s own post-explosion messages describing the devices as pipe bombs with lethal potential. The judge rejected the suggestion that the explosions were fireworks, emphasizing the devices' potential to endanger life or cause serious injury, rather than requiring proof of actual damage or injury.

On the second ground, the court noted the prosecution did not have to prove the Appellant personally threw the pipe bombs but only that she willingly participated with the necessary mens rea. The trial judge, however, found beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant did throw the bombs and intended to kill Constable Polley, basing this on the cumulative forensic and circumstantial evidence, including DNA, CCTV, eyewitness accounts, and the Appellant’s conduct before and after the incident.

The judge gave careful consideration to evidence that might point away from the Appellant’s guilt, including initial eyewitness descriptions of a male suspect, but found these outweighed by the compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence linking the Appellant to the crime. The judge’s self-directions on mens rea and evaluation of evidence were impeccable, and no procedural unfairness was identified.

Overall, the Court of Appeal found no reason to doubt the safety of the convictions, concluding that the trial judge's analysis and findings were sound and well-supported by the evidence.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against the convictions is dismissed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions for causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property on 16 May 2013 and for the attempted murder of Constable Polley on 28 May 2013. The decision confirms the sufficiency of circumstantial, forensic, and voice analysis evidence in supporting convictions in terrorism-related offences, particularly in non-jury trials. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming the correct application of existing principles on circumstantial evidence, no case submissions, and mens rea in attempted murder.