Mackle, R v [2007] NIQB 105 (27 June 2007)

Mackle, R v [2007] NIQB 105 (27 June 2007)

There was clear evidence of jury tampering in the previous trial, creating a real and present danger of further tampering. No reasonable steps, including police protection or sequestration, would sufficiently mitigate the risk without imposing unreasonable burdens or fear on jurors. Therefore, it is necessary in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed without a jury under Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Citation
[2007] NIQB 105
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Benedict Mackle; Defendant: Plunkett Jude Mackle; Defendant: Patrick Mackle; Defendant: James Anthony Sloan
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
27 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application
Outcome
Prosecution's application granted; defendants' applications refused
Legal Topics
Jury Tampering, Trial Without Jury, Abuse of Process, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Procedure Jury Tampering Trial Without Jury Abuse of Process Criminal Justice Act 2003

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Benedict Mackle

Defendant

Plunkett Jude Mackle

Defendant

Patrick Mackle

Defendant

James Anthony Sloan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution's application for a non-jury trial under Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be granted due to risk of jury tampering
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be stayed for abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

There was clear evidence of jury tampering in the previous trial, creating a real and present danger of further tampering. No reasonable steps, including police protection or sequestration, would sufficiently mitigate the risk without imposing unreasonable burdens or fear on jurors. Therefore, it is necessary in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed without a jury under Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Court Disposition

Prosecution's application granted; defendants' applications refused

Orders

  • Trial to be conducted without a jury under Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  • All defendants' applications for stay of proceedings or stay of the Section 44 application refused