Brogan & Ors, R v [2004] NICC 27 (20 December 2004)

Brogan & Ors, R v [2004] NICC 27 (20 December 2004)

The delay in prosecution did not breach Article 6 ECHR given the complexity and international aspects of the investigation; no abuse of process was established. The evidence against each accused was sufficient to justify trial, and the applications for stay/dismissal and 'No Bill' were refused. Section 11(2) of the 1989 Act imposes only an evidential burden on the accused.

Citation
[2004] NICC 27
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Maria Brogan; Defendant: Patricia O'Kane; Defendant: Lawrence Francis Claxton; Defendant: Sean Burns
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
20 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Applications for Stay/dismissal and 'no Bill' Order
Outcome
Applications for stay/dismissal and 'No Bill' refused; proceedings to continue.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Delay in Prosecution, Article 6 ECHR, Facilitating Control of Terrorist Funds, Burden of Proof, No Bill Application
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Abuse of Process Delay in Prosecution Article 6 ECHR Facilitating Control of Terrorist Funds Burden of Proof No Bill Application

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Maria Brogan

Defendant

Patricia O'Kane

Defendant

Lawrence Francis Claxton

Defendant

Sean Burns

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Applications for Stay/dismissal and 'no Bill' Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in prosecution constituted an abuse of process and breach of Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the evidence disclosed a case sufficient to justify putting the accused on trial (No Bill application)
  3. 3 Interpretation of burden of proof under Section 11(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in prosecution did not breach Article 6 ECHR given the complexity and international aspects of the investigation; no abuse of process was established. The evidence against each accused was sufficient to justify trial, and the applications for stay/dismissal and 'No Bill' were refused. Section 11(2) of the 1989 Act imposes only an evidential burden on the accused.

Court Disposition

Applications for stay/dismissal and 'No Bill' refused; proceedings to continue.

Orders

  • Applications for stay/dismissal on grounds of delay refused.
  • Applications for 'No Bill' order refused for all defendants.