Court Martial Convictions Quashed by Court of Appeal

04.10.12 | |

Unlike a jury, the basis on which a Court Martial Board reaches its verdict can become known to the defence during the sentencing process. David Rhodes, representing Trooper Danny Mulgrew, argued that the factual basis of the verdict was perverse and unsafe in the absence of a direction on self-defence. The Board's finding had effectively exonerated Mulgrew. They had found that he acted in self-defence but convicted because the way in which the Crown argued the case meant that they could not convict the co-defendant without convicting Mulgrew. The Court of Appeal (Court Martial Appeal Court) criticised the Crown for the inflexible way in which it nailed its colours to the evidence of a discredited witness in spite of forensic scientific evidence to the contrary and which led the Crown to argue that a direction on self-defence was unnecessary. The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions because of the lack of a direction on self-defence. There will not be a retrial.


To view the judgment in full please click here.

« Back to listing

About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)