[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Crown Court for Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Crown Court for Northern Ireland Decisions >> Kirkwood & Ors, R v [2014] NICC 5 (13 March 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICC/2014/5.html Cite as: [2014] NICC 5

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral citation No: [2014] NICC 5	Ref:
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down	Delivered:	13/03/14
(subject to editorial corrections)*


 


IN THE CROWN COURT OF NORTHERN IRELAND SITTING AT BELFAST ________ THE QUEEN v CHRISTOPHER KIRKWOOD, JAMIE EDWARD MORROW, JEREMIAH KIRKWOOD AND WAYNE KIRKWOOD
________

Her Honour Judge McColgan QC

[1] The accused in this case all appeared before the Crown Court on foot of a 22 Count Indictment concerning charges under The Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

[2] The seven defendants applied to the court to enter a "No Bill" in respect of every count on the Indictment, under section 2 (3) of the Grand Jury Abolition Act [NI] 1969. That application was heard by His Honour Judge Miller QC, who concluded further to written and oral legal submissions, that the application should be granted in respect of counts 15, 17, 18 & 22.

[3] In addition, His Honour concluded that in respect of the fourth and fifth named defendants, Gary Kirkwood and Ryan Samuel Kirkwood, there was insufficient evidence to link them to any of the charges against them on the Indictment, and he therefore entered a "No Bill" against them. As a consequence, both of those defendants were discharged.

[4] The remaining counts on the Indictment were listed before me on 13^th January 2014, when the trial was due to commence.

[5] On the morning of 14^th January 2014, the Crown presented and amended Indictment, containing a 23^rd Count, and this course was not objected to by the defence.

[6] The accused Christopher Kirkwood, Jeremiah Kirkwood and Wayne Kirkwood applied via their respective Counsel, to be re-arraigned on counts 5, 16 and 23.

[7] Those counts are as follows:

Count 5 – Causing unnecessary suffering to animals, contrary to s. 4(1) of the Welfare of Animals act (NI) 2011.

The particulars of that offence are that, on a date unknown between 10^th July 2011 and the 28^th November 2011, by reason of an act or failure to act, caused unnecessary suffering to four terrier cross puppies, and they knew or ought reasonably to have known, that the act or failure to act would have that effect or was likely to do so.

Count 16 – Ownership of items in connection with an animal fight, contrary to s. 8(1) (g) of the Welfare of Animals Act (NI) 2011.

The particulars of that offence are that, on the 27^th November 2011, they owned or had in their possession, items designed or adapted for use in connection with an animal fight, namely a CD7 battery pack, handheld lamps, a green dog harness and an animal trap, with the intention of them being so used.

Count 23– Keeping or training animals for an animal fight, contrary to s. 8 (1) (h) of the Welfare of Animals Act (NI) 2011.

The particulars of that offence are that, between the 10^th July 2011 and 28^th November 2011, they kept or trained animals, namely four bull lurcher type dogs, for use in connection with an animal fight.

[8] The accused Jamie Edward Morrow applied via his Counsel to be re-arraigned on count 21.

[9] That count reads as follows:

Count 21 – Keeping or training an animal for an animal fight, contrary to s.8 (1) (h) of the Welfare of Animals Act (NI) 2011.

The particulars of that offence are that, on the 27^th November 2011, he kept or trained an animal, namely a whippet cross Staffordshire bull terrier type female young adult dog, for use in connection with an animal fight.

Each of the four accused pleaded Guilty to the charges to which I have referred, and the Crown applied that the remaining counts be left on the court books in the usual terms.

[10] For the purpose of this exercise, they are therefore to be sentenced in respect of those offences only.

[11] The maximum penalty which can be imposed on any of the counts before me is a period of two years imprisonment/ a fine or both.

[12] The court has in addition, a number of ancillary powers, which are to be found at sections 31 – 44 of the Act, which includes a power to disqualify a convicted person from owning or keeping animals, for such period as the court thinks fit. (Section 33)

[13] Once the four stated defendants had entered their pleas of Guilty, the crown offered no evidence against Catherine Kirkwood, and she was formally acquitted by a jury.

[14] The factual background to this case is as follows:

On Thursday 20^th October 2011, police conducted a house search at 31 McAllister Court in Belfast in relation to an unconnected matter. They seized a Nokia phone belonging to Jamie Morrow. Analysis of that phone revealed three video clips, one of which had been created on 26^th August 2011. That clip depicted four dogs attacking and killing a cat. I am told that dogs are "blooded" in this way in order to train them to fight with other animals in blood sports, including badgers, foxes and deer.

[15] The prosecution CANNOT say that any of the accused before me was present at the scene or indeed that any of them recorded it.

[16] However, as a result of the material having been uncovered, two further house searches were carried out, one at the home of the Kirkwood's at 11 Island Street, and a further search at Morrow's address.

[17] At the Kirkwood home, both Jeremiah and Wayne Kirkwood were present. The rear yard at the premises was found to be converted into several well constructed kennels. Five adult dogs of a bull-lurcher type breed were seized. Both USPCA and SSPCA members noted injuries to the dogs consistent with the type expected from use in animal fighting. Four bull-terrier puppies were found in a shed in the rear yard under a heat lamp with no nursing mother present. Their tails had been docked.

[18] A number of other items were seized. In the rear shed police found two lamps with a rechargeable battery pack, a heavy duty animal trap, and surgical cutting implements in a blue box. In a fridge in the kitchen police found prescription only veterinary medicine typically used to treat animal wounds.

[19] At Morrow's address a dog named Princess was seized from the rear of the property.

[20] The dogs were transported to DSPCA premises in Dublin. The puppies were examined and found to be approximately three weeks old. The adult dogs were taken to a secure location in County Down. On 2^nd February 2012 a Mr Haworth (veterinary surgeon) attended that location to examine the dogs. He too noted injuries consistent with animal fighting. These injuries can be seen in the photographs. He also positively identified two of the Kirkwood dogs, and Morrow's dog Princess as three of the dogs seen on the cat killing video clip.

[21] All of the accused were interviewed under caution and denied culpability.

Pre-sentence and other reports.

Christopher Kirkwood.

[22] I have been provided with a report prepared by Christopher McKee in respect of this accused. Christopher is 23 years old and has no relevant record. Mr Rea BL appearing on his behalf, has urged the court to accept that had he originally been charged with the offences for which he now appears, rather than the counts on the initial Indictment, he would have been dealt with by the Magistrates Court. That is almost certainly the case.

[23] It is clear from the pre-sentence report that in consultation with the probation officer, the accused was less than forthcoming about his acknowledgement of culpability. That is indeed the case with all four accused. I am told by Mr Rea however that in respect of his client, he does not in any way attempt to resile from his guilty plea and I will deal with him accordingly.

Jamie Morrow.

[24] I have been provided with a report provided by Sinead Rafferty in respect of this accused. He is a 20 year old man with no relevant record. In spite of his limited acknowledgment of blame to the probation board, Mr Devine on his behalf states that he accepts blame and urges me to consider the contents of the report provided by Dr Aiden Devine, Clinical Psychologist, in which the chaotic nature of his family upbringing, particularly in his teenage years has been fully explored. I do not propose to rehearse the contents of that report in open court but I acknowledge the difficulties that this young man has experienced.

Jeremiah Kirkwood.

[25] I have been provided with a report prepared by Siobhan Taylor in respect of this accused. He is a 43 year old married man with four sons, two of whom Christopher and Wayne, are co-accused. He, like the others minimised his role in the offences when interviewed by the probation board, but like the others I am told by his Counsel, Mr Curran, that he now acknowledges his culpability, and should be treated accordingly.

[26] He has had 17 previous court appearances between 1984 and 2013, for 24 offences. They are mostly for motoring offences but there are also offences for dishonesty and disorderly behaviour.

[27] I am also in receipt of a report from Dr Carol Weir who concludes that Jeremiah Kirkwood has suffered from Alcohol Dependence Syndrome since his 30s. Dr Hill, a consultant in anaesthesia and pain management, has also provided a report in respect of the defendant's back problems. He says that the working diagnosis has been degenerative spinal pain. He says also that the condition is unlikely to change at this stage and that the long term chronic pain condition would undermine his ability to cope and adapt to custody.

Wayne Kirkwood.

[28] I have been provided with a pre-sentence report prepared by Fiona Vaughan from the probation service. Wayne Kirkwood is 20 years old and he has three convictions for matters subsequent to the index offences. They include assault occasioning actual bodily harm, threats to kill and possession of an offensive weapon. He suffers from mild learning difficulties and mental health problems. He has a history of substantial cannabis use and has indicated a willingness to end that usage. He is already subject to a probation order and a suspended sentence in relation to the subsequent offences. The report provided by Dr Ian Hanley, consultant psychologist very helpfully sets out Wayne Kirkwood's mental health issues and the concerns that arise therefrom.

[29] In terms of sentencing, I am very grateful to Counsel both on behalf of the prosecution and for each of the four defendants currently before me. There are no authorities either in this jurisdiction or in England and Wales which are of any assistance.

[30] I accept that had the defendants originally faced the current charges, the matter could arguably have been dealt with at the Magistrate's court, but that it would have been at the highest level of that jurisdiction.

[31] Taking into consideration all of the matters highlighted, treating the first and second named defendants as persons with no relevant records, and bearing in mind the psychological difficulties brought to my attention in respect of Jamie Morrow and Wayne Kirkwood, and the physical and medical condition suffered by Jeremiah Kirkwood, the sentence in respect of each defendant shall be one of 6 months suspended for 2 years. (Detention in respect of Jamie Morrow and Wayne Kirkwood and custody in respect of Christopher and Jeremiah Kirkwood)

Ancillary Orders.

[32] Disqualification orders for all defendants from owning or keeping animals, participating in the keeping of animals, being party to an arrangement under which a person is entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept, dealing in animals, transporting animals or arranging for the transport of animals. The duration of the disqualification shall be ten years in each case.

[33] Deprivation and disposal orders for all dogs seized: I grant the order sought by the prosecution for destruction of the three adult dogs remaining, and appoint the USPCA to carry out the order.

[34] In respect of the four terrier cross puppies that were seized from Island Street in November 2011, that have subsequently been re-homed at the direction of the USPCA, the court directs that their custodians be granted permanent ownership.

Finally, I am making an order for forfeiture and destruction of all equipment seized in connection with the offences.