Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE COURT OF Appeal in Belfast has allowed the appeal of Brian Shivers against his conviction on two counts of murder, six counts of attempted murder and one of possession of two firearms and ammunition with intent to endanger life.
The offences were related to the attack by two gunmen on soldiers in the Massereene barracks in Co Antrim on 7 March 2009, which was claimed by the Real IRA.
Two British soldiers were killed in the attack, Mark Quinsey (23) and Patrick Azimkar (21).
Shivers was sentenced on 10 February 2012 to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 25 years in respect of the murders, and life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years on the other counts.
Appeal
The appeal was grounded on a number of issues:
The Lord Chief Justice noted that at an early stage in the trial, the prosecution had indicated the case against Shivers would proceed as an accessory after the fact or a party to the joint enterprise.
The Chief Justice said that it did not appear that issue had been taken with the prosecution characterisation of the case against Shivers and on that basis the Court accepted that the trial judge was wrong to state that if Shivers had set fire to the car he would be guilty as a secondary party.
He said, however, that the Court did not consider that affected the safety of the conviction.
He said whether or not any such concession had been made, it was still a matter for the trial judge to determine what facts he found proved, what inferences he drew, and what conclusions as to the guilt or otherwise of Shivers followed.
Verdict
The Court heard that the prosecution case against Shivers was circumstantial and relied upon several strands.
It alleged the suggested role of Shivers as the person who set fire to the vehicle used in the attack required the availability of petrol and matches and his destruction of the vehicle was important in hindering detection.
The prosecution alleged it was inconceivable that the person who provided transport for the gunmen and the driver of the attack vehicle would not be fully aware of the nature of the operation.
The Chief Justice said that despite the manner in which the prosecution case was presented, the trial judge did not refer to the concept of joint enterprise in his judgment. He said the issue for the court was whether it should be inferred that there was a “common enterprise” to which Shivers agreed before the attack, to carry out a shooting with intent to kill.
He said that the trial judge had made no finding on the issue and consequently the Court of Appeal did not accept the Shivers’ submission that the trial judge rejected the joint enterprise case.
The Chief Justice said that the Court did not accept that a person who provides assistance after a murder with full knowledge of what has happened becomes guilty of murder and that there was no authority to support such a proposition.
Unsafe
The Chief Justice said it was the view of the Court that “this was not a secondary party case in which contemplation of an offence arose and that a conviction on that basis was unsafe”.
He said the case had been presented as one of joint enterprise where the issue for the court was whether it could be inferred that Shivers had participated in a joint venture realising that the principal might commit a crime of the type committed.
The Chief Justice said that case was not addressed by the trial judge.
Based on this, the Court was allowing the appeal. It will listen to submissions regarding a retrial.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Some serious questions to be answered here.
He looks as if he has the mother of all hangovers.
Think he has cystic fibrosis. I remember around his trial the were saying he had severe health issues
@Brown Cows the Journal appears as pro-Nationalist because the media in this country are so blatantly biased against the Nationalist agenda/community in general.
That’s British justice for you!!!
This quote from his solicitor in court today seems to have been left out
from this article.
“Mr Shivers has been through a terrible ordeal whereby he has been repeatedly assaulted /abused whilst in prison and in hospital where he is continuously under armed guard.”
Fair play Sean
How are those allegations newsworthy on their own merit?
Cliff.
This article is not a complete guide to the trial. It is only one page long.
I have no doubt that if this happened in an English court that people there would be forced to resign. The North is still a bit of a Justice jungle.
A real miscarriage of justice was adverted here.
So your last (now deleted) comment was based on nothing.
Let me get this right, the defence didn’t argue that their client is actually innocent and didn’t burn out the car used by the killers but that the judge said something he shouldn’t have and the prosecution should not have prosecuted it as a ‘joint enterprise’ case but instead a ‘secondary party’ case? Does anybody every get off because they are actually innocent or is it all technicalities? No where in the artical did I read that the defence said their client didn’t do it
It is an article, not a legal brief.
Throughout the case they argued that he was innocent, and that their was no credible evidence to suggest otherwise, there still isn’t. There would have been a stronger case linking him to the shooting of JFK.
Typical Nationalist responses so far but no surprise which normally follows on from such articles. Have the Journal given up today with their ‘Fleg’ articles? Haven’t seen any so far!
I’m presuming you missed this article today: http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-violence-arrests-flag-754696-Jan2013/
How Now Brown Cow in Cold Home Troll Hole.?
My comment was deleted yet again and this one had three likes, so it wasn’t an error which proved my point which you read before deleting it. Shaping the news my backside, setting your own agenda Journal
What’s ‘typical nationalist responses’?
shut up, browns cows
Id disagree with ‘typical nationalist responses’ my comments have been pulled,i cant comment on certain articles and the SF/CNN thread is full of anti SF westbrit comments.
Should the title not say “Shivers wins right to appeal”, only saying. It’s a bit misleading at a quick glance .
as far as im aware from reading the article on bbc his conviction has been quashed and hes in custody pending a decision on whether the DPP seeks a retrial. So hes on remand at the minute
Cheers
no prob!
Why would he get compensation? It was a procedural error on the part of the judge, not a conspiracy to imprison an innocent man.
There was many questions over the evidence gathered and its reliability throughout the case as well. If there was even the slightest piece of credible evidence that Shivers had anything to do with this, then the need for technical mishaps would never arisen. There wasn’t any evidence of any kind. That is the point here.
The Prosecution had to know that this case was not going to stand. Countless legal precedents and standards of evidence had to be ignored to stop the case from collapsing the first time.
It is no different than them building a case against you Cliff for these attacks.
Of course the defence would attack the evidence, that’s their job. The jury decided the evidence was credible.
The problem was purely procedural. Read the article again.
Brown Cow isnt that bad!
have your say