Kernohan, R. [2011] NICC 11 (15 March 2011)

Kernohan, R. [2011] NICC 11 (15 March 2011)

The police assurance provided to Kernohan's solicitor was clear and unequivocal, confirming no covert surveillance would be conducted. The objection to the formula used by the police was without substance. Reference to the defendant's silence and subsequent defence statement was not prejudicial, and there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] NICC 11
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Darren Ivan Kernohan
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
15 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Application to discharge jury refused
Legal Topics
Covert Surveillance, Privileged Legal Consultations, Right to Silence, Abuse of Process, European Convention on Human Rights
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Covert Surveillance Privileged Legal Consultations Right to Silence Abuse of Process European Convention on Human Rights

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Darren Ivan Kernohan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police assurance regarding covert surveillance of privileged legal consultations was adequate
  2. 2 Whether reference to the defendant's 'no comment' interview was prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether the jury should be discharged due to alleged inadequacy of police assurance

Ratio Decidendi

The police assurance provided to Kernohan's solicitor was clear and unequivocal, confirming no covert surveillance would be conducted. The objection to the formula used by the police was without substance. Reference to the defendant's silence and subsequent defence statement was not prejudicial, and there was no basis to discharge the jury.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge jury refused

Orders

  • Jury not discharged; trial to proceed