Haddock & Ors, R v [2012] NICC 3 (20 January 2012)

Haddock & Ors, R v [2012] NICC 3 (20 January 2012)

The evidence against the accused on the Caskey and Webster incidents was so weak, uncertain, and discredited—due to flawed memory, passage of time, contradictions, and unreliable witness testimony—that no circumstances existed in which the judge could properly convict; accordingly, all accused were acquitted on those counts.

Citation
[2012] NICC 3
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Mark Haddock; Defendant: Darren Stuart Moore; Defendant: Alexander Thomas Wood; Defendant: Jason Loughlin; Defendant: John Bond; Defendant: David Miller; Defendant: Ronald Trevor Bowe; Defendant: Samuel Jason Higgins; Defendant: Philip Laffin; Defendant: Neil Pollock; Defendant: William Hinds; Defendant: David Samuel McCrum; Defendant: Mark Thompson; Defendant: David Jason Smart
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
20 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on 'no Case to Answer' Applications at End of Prosecution Case
Outcome
Acquittal on Caskey and Webster counts; charges dismissed against all accused on those counts; no case to answer for Bond on count 11; remaining counts to proceed.
Legal Topics
Submission of No Case to Answer, Accomplice Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Memory and Passage of Time, Judicial Warnings, Non Jury Trial Procedure
Criminal Law Submission of No Case to Answer Accomplice Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Memory and Passage of Time Judicial Warnings Non Jury Trial Procedure

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Mark Haddock

Defendant

Darren Stuart Moore

Defendant

Alexander Thomas Wood

Defendant

Jason Loughlin

Defendant

John Bond

Defendant

David Miller

Defendant

Ronald Trevor Bowe

Defendant

Samuel Jason Higgins

Defendant

Philip Laffin

Defendant

Neil Pollock

Defendant

William Hinds

Defendant

David Samuel McCrum

Defendant

Mark Thompson

Defendant

David Jason Smart

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on 'no Case to Answer' Applications at End of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence is so weak or discredited that it could not conceivably support a guilty verdict
  2. 2 Appropriate judicial approach to 'no case to answer' applications in non-jury trials
  3. 3 Reliability of accomplice and complainant evidence after passage of time

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence against the accused on the Caskey and Webster incidents was so weak, uncertain, and discredited—due to flawed memory, passage of time, contradictions, and unreliable witness testimony—that no circumstances existed in which the judge could properly convict; accordingly, all accused were acquitted on those counts.

Court Disposition

Acquittal on Caskey and Webster counts; charges dismissed against all accused on those counts; no case to answer for Bond on count 11; remaining counts to proceed.

Orders

  • All accused acquitted on charges relating to attack on Keith Caskey (count 12).
  • All accused acquitted on charges relating to attack on Alan Webster (count 17).