Edwards, R v  NICA 11 (03 April 2003)
(1) That the learned Judge erred in law in that he admitted portions of evidence under the exception to the hearsay rules as res gestae, namely the evidence of what Miss McLaughlin said to police officers as she was lying on the roadside after the attack.
(2) That the learned Judge erred in admitting the police log of radio transmissions.
(3) That the learned Judge erred in failing to direct the jury adequately on the proper inferences to be drawn from the absence of significant blood staining as given in the evidence of Dr Carson.
(4) That the learned Judge erred in failing to direct the jury adequately with regard to the proper inferences to be drawn from the evidence of Hester Ferry and David Moore in that he failed to direct the jury adequately as to the circumstances in which each purported to see the defendant at particular times.
"I accept that it is for the Crown a correct way of dealing with the matter, but the witness has said what is on the document is not a verbatim report and consequently its use is limited I would object to this document going in front of the jury because there is the danger that faced with something in print [the jury would] take that as being a more accurate reflection of what was said than in fact it is "
Ms Orr pointed out that Constable Martin had been cross-examined as to what in fact was said and that the members of the jury had heard the transcript [of the log], read out to them. Mr Mooney accepted that there was no damage to the accused other than the giving of the document to the jury and accepted that with appropriate warnings there was no disadvantage to the accused.
"You'll have to bear in mind when looking at the log that the log is simply a piece of paper and the important matter is what was the evidence [of the police officers at the scene]. Constable Martin wasn't sure at what stage he relayed the information back, the constable who completed the log agreed that it was really a synopsis of what he heard, rather than a verbatim account. So you'll have to make your minds up about what was said at the scene at the time."
Accordingly we hold that the ruling cannot be criticised.
" the accused relies upon the absence of any significant evidence of blood or blood staining in the Renault motor car or upon any of his clothing. Given the number, extent and severity of the lacerations sustained by Julie McLaughlin, you may think that this is a factor of some importance." He then very fairly summarised the evidence of Dr Molloy, Mr McBride, the surgeon, Mr Logan and Dr Carson: see pp 18-20 of the summing-up. He did say at p 23:
"While it's entirely a matter for you, you may think that she was dragged from the car shortly after the attack commenced but it's really very much a matter for you."
He was requisitioned on this matter by Mr Mooney (see p 33) and brought the jury back, telling them that this was one of those points at which he may have indicated a view, that they were quite free to accept that or reject it (see pp 39, 40). We consider that this is an illustration of the fairness of the summing-up and reject this ground.
" it may be that the upper limit of the scale for attempted murder would be in the region of fourteen years, and that a sentence of this level would be reserved for a deliberate attempt at murder with no provocation."
We do not believe that this reflects the judicial approach in 2003.
"The lacerations to her neck were so deep that at one point it was possible to observe the pulsation of her spinal cord. It was only as a result of a combination of fortunate circumstances, including the very low temperature that night, the concern of a local resident and the exceptional skills of those who treated her that Julie McLaughlin survived this incident did not take place or occur in the course of a highly charged confrontation, nor was it fuelled by excessive quantities of alcohol you waited outside her house to see if she would come out. You were wearing black leather gloves, you had obviously bought a knife and she described you as being very very calm as you drove to the Groarty Road, all of which in my view strongly suggests that this was preconceived."
He also referred to the fact that the applicant did not appear to have shown any genuine remorse or regret for the injuries that he inflicted, the scars of which the victim would bear for the rest of her life.