Visit JCPCUKSC/2024/0058
•
CRIME
R (Respondent) v Perry (Appellant) No 2
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2024/0058
Parties
Appellant(s)
Fionnghuale Mary Teresa Dympha Perry
Respondent(s)
Public Prosecution Service
(1) Ministry of Justice (2) Advocate General for Northern Ireland
Issue
As certified by the Court of Appeal: in a jury trial, is the construction of a defence statement provided under Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 a question of law for the trial judge?
Facts
On 15 March 2023, following a non-jury trial, the appellant was convicted of a single count of collecting or making a record of information likely to be useful to a terrorist contrary to section 58(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000. She was subsequently sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The prosecution’s case was that the offending material comprised a series of manuscript notes authored by the appellant and compiled in a form of code in an attempt to obscure their meaning and enhance their utility. The information concerned the recovery of munitions and explosives from Kevin Nolan and the associated surveillance by MI5. The appellant’s position was that the material in question reflected handwritten copies of information she received from an anonymous third party through her letterbox. Her evidence at trial was that she did not know who Kevin Nolan was and that the notes made no sense to her. Her defence statement provided under the 1996 Act referred to the notes being forwarded to the appellant “some considerable time” after the events leading to Nolan’s conviction and after his sentence. In the next sentence it stated: “Any currency in the information contained in the notes was considered by the Defendant to have long since dissipated.” The trial judge concluded, among other things, that the “obvious meaning” of this part of the defence statement was that the appellant knew that the notes related to the 2015 arms find and that this was inconsistent with her oral evidence that the notes made no sense to her. The appellant appealed conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal and considered that the interpretation of a defence statement provided under the 1996 Act was a matter of law rather than fact. It certified the question noted in the issue as one of general public importance appropriate for consideration by the Supreme Court. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court
Date of issue
16 April 2024
Judgment appealed
Linked cases
Judgment details
Judgment date
30 April 2025
Neutral citation
[2025] UKSC 17
Judgment links
Judgment summary
30 April 2025
All videos on this page are recorded and transmitted in line with the Court's terms of use. These can be found here. Please Note: Every effort is being made to provide a satisfactory streaming service of the Supreme Court judgments and hearings. However, these services may be subject to technical issues or delay, in which case we will attempt to resolve them as soon as possible.
Appeal
Justices
Hearing dates
Start date
24 March 2025
End date
24 March 2025
Change log
Last updated 24 March 2025