About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] NICA 36
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan

Delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal in June, Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan remarked: “We reiterate the need for finality in criminal proceedings. We must deduce from this appeal that the applicant does not fully appreciate that. What must be self-evident is the stress and upset this latest third appeal attempt will have caused to the families of the deceased.”

Brendan Kelly KC with E McKenna appeared for the applicant, instructed by KRW Law. Philip Henry KC with M O’Hara appeared for the Crown, instructed by the Public Prosecution Service.

Background

In 2011, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 18 years for the murder of Trevor Buchanan and Lesley Howell in 1991. The applicant, along with Colin Howell, with whom she was in a relationship, used carbon monoxide poisoning to give the deaths the appearance of a double suicide.

In 2009, Mr Howell admitted the murders and pleaded guilty to the murders in 2010, implicating the applicant and giving evidence against her at her trial.

In 2013, the applicant unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal her conviction and sentence in respect of Ms Howell and abandoned her appeal of her conviction in respect of Mr Buchanan. The Court of Appeal later refused to set the abandonment aside on appeal.

The applicant also applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in March 2016 for a review of her conviction and sentence for the murder of Ms Howell. 

The CCRC found that there were no grounds to refer the conviction or sentence to the Court of Appeal, particularly where notwithstanding that the applicant alleged that she was subject to coercive control by Mr Howell at the time of the murders and that there had been an absence of expert psychiatric evidence at trial and on appeal, she had failed to submit new psychiatric evidence to the CCRC.

The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal to extend time for appeal and for leave to appeal on the basis that new evidence meant that the assessment of her culpability should have been lower due to mental impairment by reason of Mr Howell’s alleged coercive control.

Issues on appeal

Lady Chief Justice Keegan distilled the matters to be determined by the court to four questions:

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal given that the appeal in relation to sentence had been dismissed previously;
2. Whether, in light of 14 years having passed since the imposition of the sentence, the time to appeal should be extended;
3. Whether the test for the admission of fresh evidence had been met;
4. Even if the time issue and the test for fresh evidence were met, whether there was any substance in the arguments now raised on appeal.

The Court of Appeal

As to the jurisdictional issue, the court considered that the fact of the dismissal of the appeal against sentence in 2013 presented an “obvious foundational problem for the applicant in this case, given the very clear need for finality in criminal proceedings”.

Having regard to its residual inherent jurisdiction to reopen an appeal in exceptional circumstances to avoid injustice as per R v Walsh [2007] NICA 4, the Court of Appeal explained that it would need to consider the wider procedural history and substantive merits of the case in order to determine whether an injustice arose.

As to whether to extend the time to seek leave to appeal pursuant to s.16(2) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, the Lady Chief Justice applied the principles in R v Brownlee [2015] NICA 39.

The court considered the explanation for the delay tendered on behalf of the applicant by her solicitor, who set out on affidavit that inter alia delays had arisen in connection with allegations by the applicant of drugging, sexual assault and rape against Mr Howell.

The applicant’s solicitor further averred that he engaged with counsel, third parties and the applicant on the merits of revisiting the sentencing on the basis that the applicant was a victim of coercive control and that he received instructions to engage an expert to deal with the issue of coercive control.

It was explained that that expert, Dr Harding, did not produce his report for a year in circumstances where he self-referred himself to the General Medical Council following criticisms of him in a case of R v Mayo (Worcester Crown Court, unreported, 20 June 2023) and had some personal medical issues which may have impacted on his professional practice.

The Court of Appeal was not convinced that the extension of time requirements were satisfied, but indicated that it would not dismiss the application without consideration of the merits of the case.

As to the admission of fresh evidence on appeal, the Lady Chief Justice applied the statutory test in s.25 of the 1980 Act and found that the evidence of Dr Harding was capable of belief and in principle, admissible. 

The court was also satisfied that a reasonable explanation had been tendered for the failure to produce that evidence at trial, being that it was not evidence which was then available in circumstances where the report relied upon prison records relating to the applicant’s mental health.

Turning to the substantive merits, the Court of Appeal considered the applicant’s contentions that the concept of coercive control had not been properly explored at the time of her trial and in her previous appeals, and that this issue was relevant to sentencing.

The court considered that although it was not expressly labelled as ‘coercive control’, the controlling behaviour of the applicant’s co-accused was part of the factual matrix at the time of her trial and at the time of her previous appeals, with the trial judge referring to Mr Howell’s strong influence on the applicant during the time leading up to the offending.

The court also highlighted inter alia that Mr Harding’s opinion about the applicant contradicted the psychiatric opinion of the experts at trial, noting that their reports were contemporaneous and “hold weight against an expert who has come to the case at some remove and pieced together prison records to strengthen a case long after the events”.

The Lady Chief Justice further emphasised that the applicant’s defence to murder had been the reliability of her confessions and that she had not run a defence of diminished responsibility, and that even if there was merit to the points now made, the trial judge had allowed for Mr Howell’s control over the applicant at sentencing.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that no injustice arose and refused the applications.

The King v Hazel Stewart [2025] NICA 36