NI Court of Appeal: Reference on safety of 1986 murder conviction dismissed

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] NICA 37
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan

Delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan concluded that while the court understood that the appellant “may feel aggrieved because he was caught up in terrorist activity as a young man during the Troubles”, the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s analysis “whilst comprehensive goes too far in suggesting that after many years the appellant’s role can be relegated into the background.”

Mr D Hutton KC with Mr G McGettigan appeared for the appellant instructed by Harte Coyle Collins Solicitors, and Mr C Murphy KC with Ms L Cheshire appeared for the respondent instructed by the Public Prosecution Service.

Background

On 23 April 1984, two British army vehicles were attacked with petrol bombs and gunfire in a coordinated attack in the Bishop Street area of Derry, resulting in the death of a soldier and the injury of two soldiers. 

The appellant, then 19 years old, was arrested on 2 May 1984 and was interviewed on 23 occasions over a five day period. 

He made various admissions over a number of interviews, and had the advice of a solicitor prior to making his final statement in which he confessed that he had transported men carrying a black case to and from the scene, and that he had realised that firearms were involved.

At his trial, the appellant accepted involvement in transporting petrol bomb materials, but denied knowingly transporting gunmen or firearms and stated that his admissions in his final statement to that effect were untrue.

In that regard, the appellant contended that those admissions were induced by threats, inducements and improper conduct during the interview, which included the interviewing officers telling him that he would get a suspended sentence if he confessed, threatening him with a “terrorist type interrogation” and preventing him from giving his own account.

The trial judge rejected the appellant’s account and convicted him of murder on the basis that he aided and abetted the gunmen. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with concurrent sentences of six years for firearms offences.  

The appellant served approximately 10 years in prison and was released on life licence in June 1996. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal in 1987.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)

The CCRC referred the appellant’s case under s.10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 on the basis that, in light of the findings in R v Latimer & Ors [1992] 1 NIJB 89 concerning the credibility and conduct of officers who were also involved in the appellant’s interviews, there was a real possibility that the murder conviction would not be upheld.

The appellant also sought leave to rely on additional factors not relied upon by the CCRC, including alleged non-disclosure and material which was not before the trial judge or not relied upon by him.

The Court of Appeal

Noting that the simple question for the court was whether the convictions were unsafe, the court took as its starting point the approach articulated in R v Pendleton (2002) 1 WLR 77 and R v Pollock [2004] NICA 34.

Reviewing the transcript of the appellant’s evidence, the court was satisfied that the appellant had provided repeated and detailed false accounts of various matters without pressure being applied to him, which accorded with the trial judge’s assessment of his credibility.

Highlighting that this was not the end of the matter as the trial judge did not have the benefit of the material which later came to light in Latimer, the Lady Chief Justice accepted the proposition that the findings in that case damaged the credibility of DC Orr and DC Walsh as witnesses in criminal proceedings.

However, the court suggested that the CCRC went “too far in suggesting that in any case where there is a direct conflict of evidence between either of those officers and a defendant regarding how an alleged oral confession and/or written statement came to be made, their credibility as witnesses of truth is fatally weakened. The test is more nuanced.”

Finding that the primary interviewing activity lay with DC Woods and DC Walsh in the appellant’s case, and that the CCRC had recognised that DC Orr and DC Walsh had not interviewed him together as a pair, the Lady Chief Justice expressed that it was also of key importance that the appellant did not dispute what he said at interview or that he had freely signed the impugned statements.

The court determined that there was no question of falsification or fabrication as in Latimer and proceeded to consider the appellant’s claims of misconduct.

Having pointed out that the matters alleged by the appellant had been fully ventilated at trial, the Court of Appeal expressed that the reality was that the appellant had admitted his role in the petrol bombing and had not been rushed into his fourth statement, which he gave with legal advice.

Lady Chief Justice Keegan confirmed “We find no merit in the argument that the appellant was swayed by inducements given the seriousness of this offending. The alleged verbal aggression and threats is arguably a stronger argument but not in our view, even with the caveat as to DC Walsh’s integrity, enough to question the safety of the convictions.”

The court was similarly unconvinced in relation to the appellant’s motions concerning the existence of inter alia complaint files, expert reports and witness statements as to character.

Not being satisfied that the appellant’s convictions were unsafe, the court reiterated “As this court has said before, a Latimer issue is not a freestanding ground of appeal. The additional arguments in combination with the Latimer point do not persuade us for the reasons we have given. In our view, the previous CCRC refusal can be admitted as fresh evidence and assessed, however, the appeal point based upon it cannot succeed.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The King v John McDevitt [2026] NICA 37