Perry, R. v (Appeal Against Conviction)

Factual and Procedural Background

On 15 March 2023, the Appellant was convicted following a non-jury trial of collecting or making a record of information likely to be useful to a terrorist, contrary to section 58(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000. The conviction concerned manuscript notes relating to a security debrief about the police recovery of firearms, ammunition, and explosives connected to a significant arms discovery in September 2015 in the Ballymurphy area of The City. The Appellant was sentenced on 17 May 2023 to four years imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the notes were authored by the Appellant and contained information capable of providing practical assistance to terrorists in planning future acts. The defence contended that the notes had been anonymously delivered to the Appellant after the relevant events and were possessed for journalistic and political purposes, asserting a reasonable excuse under section 58(3) of the Terrorism Act. The Appellant challenged the lawfulness of the police search of her home, which led to the discovery of the notes.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the search of the Appellant’s home was lawful, specifically addressing the adequacy of the search warrant and the authority of the officers conducting the search.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the Appellant’s application for a direction of no case to answer, particularly concerning the utility of the notes at the time of their discovery and the sufficiency of evidence to disprove the statutory defence of reasonable excuse.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in finding the Appellant’s evidence untruthful based on an alleged departure from the Defence Statement.
4. Whether the trial judge erred in drawing an adverse inference from the Appellant’s failure to make certain claims during police interviews that were later made in her defence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The search warrant was unlawful because it did not specify the name of the applying officer, only the service number, contrary to Article 17(6)(a)(i) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE 1989).
• The search was unlawful because the members of the search team were not authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector, in breach of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007.
• The trial judge should have directed no case to answer as there was no evidence that the notes were likely to be useful to terrorists at the time of their discovery, and the statutory defence of reasonable excuse was raised but not disproved.
• The trial judge wrongly found the Appellant’s evidence untruthful by relying heavily on an interpretation of the Defence Statement that the Appellant disputes.
• The adverse inference drawn from the Appellant’s silence during police interviews was unjustified.

Respondent's Arguments

• The search warrant complied with statutory requirements despite the use of the service number instead of the name, and the search was lawful.
• The authorisation of the search officers was valid despite the absence of inspector-level authorisation for each officer present, as the search was authorised by an inspector and practical policing realities apply.
• The notes were clearly of a kind likely to be useful to terrorists at the time of discovery and the trial judge correctly refused the direction of no case to answer.
• The Defence Statement is a pleading, not evidence, and the trial judge’s interpretation of it was a question of law properly determined by him.
• The trial judge’s adverse inference was supported by the evidence and did not contribute to the guilty verdict.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by analysing the statutory framework governing the offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, confirming the prosecution’s burden to prove that the Appellant collected or possessed information likely to assist terrorism and was aware of its nature and possession. The court summarised the prosecution’s evidence that the notes were authored by the Appellant, were coded to obscure meaning, and contained debriefing information concerning a prior arms seizure and related police investigations.

Regarding the first ground of appeal, the court scrutinised the lawfulness of the search warrant and execution. It considered the statutory requirement under Article 17(6)(a)(i) of PACE 1989 that the warrant specify the name of the applying officer. The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that specifying the service number instead of the name rendered the warrant unlawful, reasoning that the service number is an adequate identifying mechanism and that the legislature did not intend to impose the severe sanction of unlawfulness for such a technical non-compliance. The court further examined the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 provisions requiring search officers to be authorised by an inspector. It found that although the search was not authorised by an inspector for each officer present, the search was authorised by an inspector overall, and practical policing realities justified this. The court held that the failure to comply strictly with the authorisation requirement did not render the search unlawful or the evidence inadmissible, applying established principles from leading authorities on statutory interpretation and admissibility.

Turning to the second ground, the court reviewed the trial judge’s refusal to direct no case to answer. It considered the evidence that the notes were likely to be useful to terrorists at the time of discovery, rejecting the Appellant’s submission that the passage of time negated their utility. The court also examined the statutory defence of reasonable excuse, noting that the Defence Statement is a pleading and not evidence. It found that the defence had not adduced sufficient evidence to raise the defence in a manner requiring the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial judge’s refusal was within his margin of appreciation.

On the third and fourth grounds, the court analysed the trial judge’s interpretation of the Defence Statement, particularly paragraph 4(n), and his finding that the Appellant’s oral evidence departed from the Defence Statement and was untruthful. The court held that the construction of the Defence Statement is a question of law for the trial judge, not a question of fact for the jury, and found no error in the judge’s interpretation. It further upheld the judge’s credibility assessment and adverse inference drawn from the Appellant’s silence in police interviews, noting that these findings were supported by the evidence and not undermined by any misinterpretation of the Defence Statement.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against conviction is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained, confirmed the sufficiency of the prosecution’s case to refuse a direction of no case to answer, and affirmed the trial judge’s findings on the Appellant’s credibility and adverse inferences. The decision directly affirms the conviction and does not establish new precedent beyond the application of existing principles to the facts. The appeal against sentence was reserved for separate consideration.