Jones, R. v [2006] NICC 27 (27 October 2006)

Jones, R. v [2006] NICC 27 (27 October 2006)

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the user of the jumper, was wearing it on the day in question, and was the person who conveyed the van and mortar device into the yard. The accused's silence and failure to mention his work at the Orana Centre permitted the inference that the blood on the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] NICC 27
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Gary Jones
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
27 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Outcome
guilty on count 2 (causing explosion), not guilty on count 1 (attempted murder), count 3 not considered
Legal Topics
Explosive Substances, Attempted Murder, Forensic Evidence, Inferences From Silence
Criminal Law Explosive Substances Attempted Murder Forensic Evidence Inferences From Silence

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

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Gary Jones

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was the person who conveyed and operated the improvised mortar device
  2. 2 Whether forensic evidence links the accused to the scene and items
  3. 3 Whether the accused's silence and failure to mention facts in interview permits adverse inferences

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the user of the jumper, was wearing it on the day in question, and was the person who conveyed the van and mortar device into the yard. The accused's silence and failure to mention his work at the Orana Centre permitted the inference that the blood on the jumper was not innocently transferred. The evidence was sufficient to convict on causing an explosion likely to endanger life, but insufficient to establish actual intent to kill for attempted murder.

Court Disposition

guilty on count 2 (causing explosion), not guilty on count 1 (attempted murder), count 3 not considered

Orders

  • Defendant found guilty of unlawfully and maliciously causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property under section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
  • Defendant found not guilty of attempted murder.