Background

On 26 June 2020, the defendant, Jordan McClintock, arrived at a small gathering on the Ballykeel Estate in Ballymena. He was uninvited, but was allowed to join the gathering. No arguments occurred, although the deceased and the defendant did have a conversation about paramilitaries and the need to “earn respect” in the kitchen.

The deceased, Jason Lee Martin, moved to the living room and sat down. At this stage the defendant grabbed a knife from a block in the kitchen and proceeded to stab Mr Martin a number of times in the leg and arm. One of these stab wounds severed the femoral artery. Despite the best efforts of his friends, the police and medical professionals, Mr Martin died.

The defendant consistently made the case that he could not remember what happened due to his alcohol intake that night. The forensic evidence was that his blood alcohol level could have been around 310 mg/dl, sufficient to render a regular social drinker “extremely drunk”.

The defendant originally pleaded not guilty to the murder of Mr Martin. At the commencement of his trial on 8 December 2021, he instead pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.

In support of the defence of diminished responsibility, the defendant relied on the evidence of Dr Ronan Brennan, consultant forensic psychiatrist. It was his opinion that the defendant’s ADHD and alcohol dependency syndrome combined to substantially impair his ability to exercise self-control.

However, following cross examination, Dr Brennan accepted that he had failed to take into account relevant evidence in relation to the defendant’s alcohol consumption, and he accepted that he could no longer stand by this diagnosis.

This plea was not accepted by the Crown and the matter proceeded to trial. After several days’ evidence, he was rearraigned and pleaded guilty to murder. The court imposed the only sentence open to it, custody for life.

The court was therefore tasked with fixing the minimum term which the defendant must serve before he can be considered for release by the Parole Commissioners. Under Article 5 of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 the minimum term shall be such “as the court considers appropriate to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence having regard to the seriousness of the offence”.

The court’s consideration

Considerations regarding the minimum term in murder cases is set out in R v McCandless [2004] NICA 1, with the “normal starting point” being 12 years. The court was satisfied that the higher point of 15/16 years was not appropriate here, as there was no element of planning in the offence and the defendant only acquired the murder weapon moments before the attack.

In relation to the defendant’s ADHD, Dr Loughrey noted that his “relatively severe ADHD” presented a risk factor for criminality. Dr Bunn noted that ADHD can result in impulsivity but not such that it impacts on the ability to exercise rational judgement.

The court also recognised that the defendant showed a lack of engagement with support services offered to him. The judge did not accept that the defendant’s mental condition reduced his culpability or that this was a borderline murder/manslaughter case, instead “The defendant subjected his victim to a wanton, unprovoked and despicable attack with a kitchen knife which resulted in his death”.

In light of all the evidence, there was no reason to depart from the normal starting point of 12 years. The next question to consider was whether there were any aggravating or mitigating factors.

Although the court accepted that the defendant arrived unarmed, he did choose to arm himself with a lethal weapon and subject his victim to a vicious and unprovoked attack. There was no quarrel. There was no reason for the defendant’s conduct. These factors increased the starting point from 12 years to 14 years.

Next, the court accepted that the defendant pleaded guilty, eventually, and that this was welcomed by the victim’s family and friends. On that basis, the court reduced the timeline by one-eighth, equivalent to a reduction of 21 months.

Finally, in taking into account the defendant’s age, his lack of premeditation, and the remorse expressed by him, the court further reduced the starting point by nine months.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the court concluded that the minimum term of custody which the defendant must serve was 11 years and 6 months. This was found to be the period required to fulfil the twin aims of deterrence and retribution. The court stressed that this was simply the minimum term – ultimately the release of the defendant from custody would be the responsibility of the Parole Commissioners.

The court noted that any leniency in this term had to be tempered by the need to deter young men from engaging in knife crime. The court was cognisant of the impact of these crimes on the community at large, “tragic consequences of events such as these, where young men resort to the use of knives to pursue some agenda or settle an argument, are all too common.”