Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Special Criminal Court approached issues around belief evidence in proper manner
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeals against convictions under the Offences Against the State Act, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the manner in which the Special Criminal Court approached the belief evidence put before it and the challenges and criticism of that evidence was entirely proper, and the conclusions arrived at were ones that were certainly open to the court to make; (b) the nature of the surveillance devices deployed and the role of those devices in combatting organised crime and terrorism were classically the sort of issues grounding a claim of privilege advanced and the Special Criminal Court made no error of principle in this regard; and (c) the Special Criminal Court was entitled to find that the detentions, searches and ultimately the arrests were all lawful.
Appeals against conviction for offences contrary to Offences Against the State Act 1939 - first and second appellants found guilty of providing assistance to an unlawful organisation contrary to s. 21A - third to fifth appellants found guilty of membership of an unlawful organisation - first to third appellants also appealing severity of sentence and DPP seeking review of the sentences of the fourth and fifth appellants on grounds of undue lenience - sentencing matters dealt with in separate judgments - 50-day trial and three-day appeal - appellants found guilty of participating in an internal IRA inquiry at an empty residential property - whether belief evidence properly admitted and accepted by Special Criminal Court - whether refusal to disclose surveillance devices rendered trial unsafe - whether audio recording properly admitted - whether initial search, detention, and arrests were lawful - whether acquittal should have been directed - miscellaneous other grounds of appeal.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
