About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Applying the approach in R v Pollock, Lord Justice Weatherup found that the convictions were safe; and further rejected all grounds advanced against the sentence.

Background

Around January 2013, Mr Keith McConnan commenced employment at various businesses owned by Mr Oliver Trainor. In December 2013, on a search of the premises occupied by Mr McConnan and his girlfriend in Forkhill, County Armagh, police recovered a plastic bag containing, inter alia, an improvised mobile phone operated switch unit – similar to devices determined to be the initiators in a number of improvised explosive devices in Northern Ireland; and a .455 calibre cartridge which had been reloaded with a 262 grain cast lead bullet. The reloaded cartridge was ‘ammunition’ within the meaning of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.

Mr McConnan contended that, while he was visiting Mr Trainor’s house, he was told to take the bag with him. He took the bag and placed it in the wardrobe, and was not aware of the contents of the bag. It was common case that there were no fingerprints or DNA recovered from any of the items in the bag or the inside of the bag itself.

In May 2016, Her Honour Judge Crawford, sitting without a jury, convicted Mr McConnan of:

In June 2016, Mr McConnan was sentenced to a determinate custodial sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

Court of Appeal

Mr McConnan sought to appeal his conviction and sentence.

It was argued on his behalf that the conviction was unsafe because the trial judge erred in finding that:

It was also argued that the trial judge gave undue weight to certain evidence, and failed to give any adequate weight to certain evidence (particulars found on pages 9-10 of the judgment). Furthermore, it was argued that the judge was liable to have been prejudiced by the decision made by Mr McConnan’s co-accused (his girlfriend) to not give evidence. During the trial it was contended by Crown counsel that she had lied to conceal her boyfriend’s involvement, that she knew something that implicated Mr McConnan – thus it was argued in the Court of Appeal that this was “particularly prejudicial” to Mr McConnan in circumstance where the trial judge had to make an assessment of his credibility on the issue whether he knew the bag contained a TPU.

Guiding Principles

Lord Justice Weatherup explained that the guiding principles for an appellate court in a criminal non-jury trial were stated in R v Thain NI 457:

The general approach to a review of factual findings was restated in the Supreme Court in DB v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland UKSC 7.

Conclusions on conviction

Lord Justice Weatherup was satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to reach the conclusions she did, and that she consistently adopted careful language which reflected the measured approach which she reached these conclusions.

Arguments alleging undue weight, and inadequate weight to certain items of evidence were also rejected by the Court.

In relation to the suggestion of prejudice, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the comments of Counsel were disregarded and did not impact on the outcome.

Applying the approach in R v Pollock NICA 34, the Court was satisfied as to the safety of the convictions.

Appeal against sentence

Mr McConnan argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle, however all grounds contended by Mr McConnan were rejected.

As such, the appeal against conviction and sentence were dismissed.