McKeown, R v [2004] NICA 41 (28 October 2004)

McKeown, R v [2004] NICA 41 (28 October 2004)

The appeal was dismissed because the disclosure judge found the undisclosed material irrelevant to the appellant's defence, the procedures in place provided sufficient safeguards, and no unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR was established. The appointment of special counsel was not warranted, and the trial judge's actions, including drawing adverse inferences, were justified and did not render the conviction unsafe.

Citation
[2004] NICA 41
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Appellant/defendant: Clifford George McKeown
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
28 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Public Interest Immunity, Entrapment, Right to Fair Trial, Adverse Inferences, Appointment of Special Counsel
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Disclosure of Evidence Public Interest Immunity Entrapment Right to Fair Trial Adverse Inferences Appointment of Special Counsel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Clifford George McKeown

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-disclosure of certain material on public interest grounds rendered the trial unfair and breached Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the procedures for disclosure in non-jury trials in Northern Ireland provide sufficient safeguards for the accused's rights
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of special counsel or further procedural safeguards was required

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the disclosure judge found the undisclosed material irrelevant to the appellant's defence, the procedures in place provided sufficient safeguards, and no unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR was established. The appointment of special counsel was not warranted, and the trial judge's actions, including drawing adverse inferences, were justified and did not render the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed