Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The words highlighted above formed the basis of an application on behalf of the Defendant for an order of "no bill" in relation to the third, ninth and fourteenth counts on the amended indictment, pursuant to Section 2(3) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. I refused this application, on the ground that I was satisfied that the papers disclose sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict the Defendant as regards these counts.
(a) Counts 1 to 4 concern the offences of cruelty allegedly perpetrated by the Defendant against R, spanning the period July 1993 to July 2005. The first three counts are specific, whereas the fourth is specimen.
(b) Counts 5 to 11 concern the seven offences of cruelty allegedly perpetrated by the Defendant against P, beginning in December 1994 and ending in March 2006. Nos. 5 � 10 are specific, whereas No. 11 is specimen.
(c) Counts 12 to 17 concern the six offences of cruelty allegedly perpetrated by the Defendant against J, during the period December 1994 to March 2006. The first five are specific, whereas the sixth is specimen.
(d) Count 18 is a specimen count relating to A, in respect of the period 17 th February 2002 to 1 st March 2006.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.