Granaghan, R. v [2022] NICC 32 (20 November 2022)

Granaghan, R. v [2022] NICC 32 (20 November 2022)

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the DNA deposited on the wires was that of the defendant Granaghan, and the circumstantial evidence, including association with convicted terrorists and possession of relevant tools, supports the inference that he was involved in the construction and possession of the UVIED with intent to endanger life. The possibility of tertiary transfer was considered but rejected as not reasonably probable given the totality of evidence. Adverse inferences were drawn from the defendant's silence.

Citation
[2022] NICC 32
Parties
Prosecution: The King; Defendant: Peter Granaghan
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
20 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Final Judgment
Outcome
conviction
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Explosive Substances, DNA Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Joint Enterprise, Adverse Inference
Criminal Law Forensic Evidence Attempted Murder Explosive Substances DNA Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Joint Enterprise Adverse Inference

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Prosecution

Peter Granaghan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's DNA presence on the device proves involvement in construction and deployment of the UVIED
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial and association evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether adverse inferences can be drawn from the defendant's silence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the DNA deposited on the wires was that of the defendant Granaghan, and the circumstantial evidence, including association with convicted terrorists and possession of relevant tools, supports the inference that he was involved in the construction and possession of the UVIED with intent to endanger life. The possibility of tertiary transfer was considered but rejected as not reasonably probable given the totality of evidence. Adverse inferences were drawn from the defendant's silence.

Court Disposition

conviction

Orders

  • Defendant found guilty on all counts: attempted murder, making and possessing an explosive device with intent to endanger life.
  • Case to proceed to sentencing.