McCartan & Anor, R v [2008] NICA 5 (30 January 2008)

McCartan & Anor, R v [2008] NICA 5 (30 January 2008)

The convictions were safe because the trial judge convicted on a basis that was consistently advanced by the prosecution throughout the trial—namely, that the appellants participated in a joint enterprise to lure the victim to his death. The circumstantial evidence, together with the appellants' failure to provide explanations, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There was no deprivation of opportunity to meet the case, and the drawing of adverse inferences from silence was justified.

Citation
[2008] NICA 5
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Appellant/defendant: Richard David McCartan; Appellant/defendant: Barry David Skinner
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
30 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Murder, Joint Enterprise, Circumstantial Evidence, Appeal Procedure, Adverse Inference From Silence
Criminal Law Murder Joint Enterprise Circumstantial Evidence Appeal Procedure Adverse Inference From Silence

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Richard David McCartan

Appellant/defendant

Barry David Skinner

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for murder were unsafe due to the trial judge convicting on a basis not advanced by the prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the convictions
  3. 3 Whether adverse inferences could properly be drawn from the appellants' silence

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were safe because the trial judge convicted on a basis that was consistently advanced by the prosecution throughout the trial—namely, that the appellants participated in a joint enterprise to lure the victim to his death. The circumstantial evidence, together with the appellants' failure to provide explanations, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There was no deprivation of opportunity to meet the case, and the drawing of adverse inferences from silence was justified.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; convictions upheld