Blaney, R v [2003] NICC 22 (09 January 2003)

Blaney, R v [2003] NICC 22 (09 January 2003)

The admissions made by the accused were voluntary, reliable, and obtained in accordance with the law and practice applicable at the time. There was no breach of Article 6 ECHR or unfairness justifying exclusion. The absence of a solicitor during interviews did not render the proceedings unfair, and subsequent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] NICC 22
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Accused: Philip Joseph Blaney
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
09 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment After Voir Dire on Admissibility of Admissions
Outcome
Guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10; not guilty on counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13; no finding on count 11.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Right to Legal Advice, Presence of Solicitor During Police Interview, Article 6 ECHR, Northern Ireland (emergency Provisions) Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act, Contemporary Standards in Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Admissibility of Confessions Right to Legal Advice Presence of Solicitor During Police Interview Article 6 ECHR Northern Ireland (emergency Provisions) Act Prevention of Terrorism Act +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Philip Joseph Blaney

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment After Voir Dire on Admissibility of Admissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admissions made by the accused during police interviews should be excluded due to lack of solicitor's presence and alleged breaches of Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the police conduct during interviews rendered the admissions unreliable or unfair
  3. 3 Whether subsequent changes in law and practice regarding solicitor presence affect admissibility of evidence obtained prior to such changes

Ratio Decidendi

The admissions made by the accused were voluntary, reliable, and obtained in accordance with the law and practice applicable at the time. There was no breach of Article 6 ECHR or unfairness justifying exclusion. The absence of a solicitor during interviews did not render the proceedings unfair, and subsequent changes in law do not retrospectively affect admissibility. The accused is found guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10.

Court Disposition

Guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10; not guilty on counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13; no finding on count 11.

Orders

  • Admissions made by the accused are admissible in evidence.
  • Trial proceeded in the absence of the accused with his consent.