About this case:

• Citation:
  [2022] NICA 16
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey

Orhan Koca also sought to appeal against the harshness of his murder sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years. The court found that the sentence had been reasonable, given the aggravating factors in the case.

Background

The deceased, Eamonn Magee, was a student and a promising young boxer. He was stabbed to death at around 2.30am on 30 May 2015 in the area of Summerhill Park, Belfast. Before his death he had been in the home of his girlfriend, who was married to the appellant.

Having stepped outside the premises to check for a pizza delivery he was attacked, stabbed repeatedly and killed. The cause of death was multiple stab wounds.

Appeal

In relation to his conviction, the appellant now claimed that his legal representatives failed to provide him with an interpreter, and that he did not understand the charge he was pleading guilty to.

He also argued that he had not actually intended to murder the deceased, and had thought he was an intruder when he arrived at his estranged wife’s home after a late shift. He stated that he was afraid the man might harm his children.

He also stated that he eventually pleaded guilty to the offence when he saw the victim’s family at court and felt sorry for them, but then later claimed that he had actually pleaded guilty because he believed that the prosecution had offered him a deal of 10 years’ imprisonment if he pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

He said: “The prosecution already offered me a deal, if I take all responsibility they will give me ten years deal … [and] … in the court [my solicitor] didn’t give the court or judge the ten year deal statement and he still has it.”

The court found that many of these claims were pure hearsay.

There were, however, reports compiled by a chartered forensic psychologist and an educational psychologist which claimed that the appellant had low cognitive and intellectual ability, and required communication using simple English.

The appellant’s counsel

Upon receipt of the allegations against the legal representatives, the Court of Appeal brought this to their attention, inviting a response. Beginning with his solicitor at the time of the trial, it was explained that the appellant was now claiming that:

1. His solicitor had been privy to a deal whereby the accused would receive a sentence of 10 years but that they did not act upon this nor did they make the court aware of the existence of such a deal.

2. That the accused did not want to plead guilty to murder.

The solicitor categorically rejected these claims. Instead, they claimed that, mid-trial, the accused “provided a dramatic change of instructions” and “indicated that he had in fact killed Mr Magee”.

Further, the solicitor noted that there seemed to be no dissatisfaction or complaint about the services at the time, or immediately after: “After the conclusion of this case I continued to act for Mr Koca in respect of a number of matters relating to his divorce, miscellaneous prison matters regarding his religious freedoms and his application to be repatriated back to Turkey.”

The senior counsel on the case also rejected that there was any such plea deal withheld, and noted: “Mr Koca was treated with courtesy and respect throughout all my contact with him. He never displayed any difficulty in understanding the nature of the charges or the evidence against him or the advice that he was given. He had no difficulty in communicating … He never at any stage asked for an interpreter. Had he done so then this request would have been immediately complied with.”

Determination and conclusion

The court recognised that the claims in this case could be sufficient to give rise to an unsafe conviction. However, they found this appeal to be “objectively devoid of credibility and reliability”.

The court found that this appeal had been directed be a series of bare, unsubstantiated assertions, which were manifestly self-serving.

The appellant failed to provide any appropriate evidence of his claims. The court noted that he could have easily established his understanding of English at the time, which was a central claim in his submission, but had not provided any evidence from acquaintances, employers, or relatives by marriage.

The court also considered the claim that the minimum term sentence of 14 years had been unreasonable and excessive.

The court did find issues with the sentencing decision. The decision had no agreed basis of plea, there was no “Newton” hearing, and the judge did not engage with the appellant’s claim about the weapon which he admitted to have used.

The court found this aspect of the sentencing decision to be unsatisfactory and open to criticism. Therefore, the court considered whether this impacted the appellant’s contention that the minimum term imposed, 14 years’ imprisonment, was manifestly excessive.

Ultimately, the court was satisfied that there was a basis for relying on the “higher starting point” for sentencing, due to several aggravating factor identified in the case. This included premeditation and preparation, which was seen in acts such as the infliction of multiple stab wounds, the lack of provocation, the disposal of the murder weapon, and the later concealment of the appellant’s bloody clothing.

The court accepted that there was no mention in the sentencing decision as to the mitigating factor of the appellant’s guilty plea. However, the court was nonetheless satisfied that the sentence was reasonable.

The court concluded by stating that “this was an appalling, cowardly murder of a defenceless victim striking at the foundations of the rule of law in any civilised society bereft of any mitigating or redeeming feature”.

Leave to appeal was dismissed, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.