Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland Decisions

Summary of the Evidence

Medical evidence

We will consider the inferences which the jury must have drawn from this medical evidence at a later stage.

The relationship between Julie McGinley and Michael Monaghan

The Blacklion Incident

The telephone traffic

The drugs charge

The inferences open to be drawn

We acknowledge, of course, the relevance of the evidence on one topic to the evidence on another. The evidence cannot be separated into compartments and isolated, as the trial judge pointed out to the jury. For example, the evidence about the relationship of Julie McGinley and Michael Monaghan is relevant to an assessment of the Blacklion incident and vice versa. We repeat that the jury were entitled to conclude that Mrs McGinley and Mr Monaghan sought to entrap Mr McGinley in a major drug-smuggling incident which did not succeed, but if successful, would have led to a long term of imprisonment for him.

The events of 12 and 13 August

The arrangement for a babysitter

The Fort Royal Hotel

The return home

Sunday 13 August

Shortly before 1.00 pm on Sunday 13 August Mr Elliott went to the McGinleys' house in his Land Rover. Mrs McGinley came running from the back door, said that Gerry was away, that she was in a hurry, getting the children ready and making the dinner. They spoke through the window of the Land Rover.

The telephone traffic

The reporting of Mr McGinley's disappearance to the police

In relation to the Saturday evening she said:

"We sat drinking and Gerry was in great form. I would say that Gerry had seven or eight pints. I took two West Coast Coolers. At about 12.45am I tried to get through to ring Heather from a pay phone in the hotel but I couldn't get through to Heather, the phone just rang out."

In relation to the following morning she said:

"I woke early to the noise of a plastic bag being rustled. I could see Gerry at the foot of our bed putting clothes into a plastic bag. This was a large bag. I think it might have been the Dunnes bag he had got the clothes in on Saturday. I have now gone through his clothing and found three pairs of his trousers gone and some of his t-shirts, his work boots, a pair of black shoes. At the time I said to Gerry, `What are you doing?' Gerry said something about it all being a set-up with the Gardai, that he was not going to do jail, that he was set-up before and he was not going to be set-up again. I told him if he ran off he was only going to make things worse. Then Gerry lifted money from our top drawer. There would have been over three grand in his drawer and I estimate he took about a grand. A car then landed on our street. Gerry says to me, `I'm away, I have to go.' I went to the kids' room and looked out. The last thing Gerry said to me was, `I will ring you later.' As I looked out the kids' bedroom window I saw a large bright blue Toyota car going down the lane. The driver had short dark hair and I only got a glimpse of them. The Toyota was big, either a Carina or Avensis, it was a Republic of Ireland registration with D or DL in it. I hadn't seen this car before. I went back in the room and seen that it was coming up to 7.00am."

The interviews of Mrs McGinley after her arrest

The transcript reads:

"Mrs McGinley: Which one is this, which name?

Police officer: Carmel McManus.

Mrs McGinley: Carmel McManus. I thought you told me it was Carmel Wilson worked in BT.

Police officer: Carmel Wilson is nee Carmel McManus.

Mrs McGinley: But sure for God's sake, how, I mean, I don't even know Carmel Wilson. I know the name Carmel Wilson. There is about three hundred people in that building. I don't even know Carmel Wilson, let alone know she was Carmel McManus."

Yet it was proved conclusively that she used the phone, that she must have registered it and the irresistible inference is that amongst those involved in the murder only she could have known that Carmel Wilson was called Carmel McManus before she was married and lived near her. Mrs McGinley had worked for BT from 1994. Her reaction was exceptionally clever but utterly false.

She said that she would not think that she had rung Monaghan from Gran Canaria. She was not sure whether Tony McNern would have known Gerry. She was questioned about the drugs incident at Blacklion and had an elaborate story about her innocence. She was questioned about the same incident on Friday afternoon. Her admissions to this court indicate her skill in lying to the police.

The interviews of Mr Monaghan

The redecoration and the fires

The conversations with Mr Owens and with Mr and Mrs McElroy

The proposed sale of the house

The level of indebtedness and the insurance cover on Mr McGinley's life

The forensic evidence

The grounds of appeal

Mrs McGinley

Grounds 1 to 6 were set out before the transcript of evidence became available and were what one may describe as 'standard' grounds of appeal in those circumstances.

Ground 1

The conviction was against and contrary to the evidence and weight of evidence considered at the trial.

We are satisfied that the jury was entitled to convict Mrs McGinley of the murder of her husband and that the conviction is safe subject to Ground 9A.

Ground 2

The trial judge charged the jury with a summary of the trial which summary manifestly lacked balance in that it placed emphasis upon features of the trial supporting positions adopted by the Crown in the prosecution during the trial and failed to place emphasis or equal emphasis upon the features of the evidence led during the trial by the Defence.

In our view the trial judge summed up adversely to the applicant. But, in so doing and subject to the particular criticisms made at Grounds 7 and following, he was fully entitled to do so as the weight of the evidence lay so heavily against the applicant. If he had summed-up in her favour he would have distorted the evidence. As it was, it appeared to us to be a model charge.

Ground 3

The trial judge's charge was excessively long

The trial lasted for three months. The evidence was not straightforward. We consider that the charge was a model of clarity and must have been of considerable benefit to the jury. He repeatedly broke off at appropriate times so that the jury could have refreshment and an opportunity to approach the other sections of the summing-up unclouded by confusion of the issues. He clearly explained at the outset the way in which he intended to approach the different issues and he adhered to this task. No possible criticism can be advanced in respect of the length of the charge and there is nothing in the additional grounds of appeal which assists in respect of Ground 3.

Ground 4

At certain sections of the trial judge's charge his tone reflected incredulity when it recounted the defence case and the trial judge thereby conveyed by his tone to the jury the impression that the defence case was not worthy of belief.

We are happy to put on record that this ground of appeal was not pursued before us.

Ground 5

The jury failed to properly and adequately consider all of the evidence as reflected in the short period of the jury's consideration at the conclusion of the trial.

Again we reject this attack on the integrity of the jury which was not repeated before us. It seems to us that the clarity of the summing-up made the task of the jury a great deal easier than it would have been. That the trial judge singled out the issues and separated the evidence on the various issues which inevitably overlapped during the course of the evidence enabled the jury to comprehend the evidence in a way which they otherwise might not have done.

Ground 6

Ground 6 is a 'catch-all' ground of appeal and does not require to be set out.

Ground 7

The learned trial judge misdirected the jury in a matter of crucial importance when he said that, if they were satisfied that the deceased was murdered in the bedroom in the early hours of the morning in question, they would have "little difficulty" in convicting the appellant (sic) McGinley of murder" for the simple reason that anyone who participated in the act of murder while she was in the house could only have done so with her complicity and consent".

In our view this is a very simple point although, understandably, Mr Barry MacDonald QC who appeared for Mrs McGinley on the appeal but not at the trial, argued it powerfully and forcefully.

He referred to the trial judge's charge in which at the outset the trial judge made it clear to the jury, as he had done during the trial that "the directions that I give you as to the law you must accept and apply. However, when I refer to the evidence, the position is quite different". Volume 6 of the Books of Appeal in the case of Mrs McGinley omits the crucial passages of the trial judge's first words to the jury and contain only that part of the summing-up which commenced on the second day. The commencement of the summing-up is to be found in volume 6 of the Books of Appeal in the case of Monaghan, which occurred at the outset on the previous day and are to the point.

The trial judge said:-

"I have explained to you before how we carry out quite separate functions …. Let me start with the functions of the judge and jury …. As I've had occasion to say to you a number of times, our functions in this case have been, and will remain quite quite different ….. Now the directions that I give you as to the law; you must accept and apply. However, when I refer to the evidence the position is quite different. All questions of evidence and fact are for you, and you alone, to decide …. For example, what did actually happen in the early hours of the morning of the 13^th August or (if you come to this question) what was the state of mind of the defendants when they came to play their parts in the events about which you have heard – if you conclude that they played any part. Now these decisions you must take by having regard to the whole of the evidence in this case …."

Mr Barry MacDonald QC attached great significance to the remarks of the judge on the second morning of his summing-up. He cited the following passage from the second morning:-

"Let me try to put that in a slightly different way that may make it easier to understand. If the prosecution has satisfied you that Mr McGinley was murdered in the bedroom in the early hours of the morning you may have little difficulty in convicting Mrs McGinley of murder because she said that she was in the house and indeed in the bedroom within a very short time of returning home about 2.30 am. If she was in the house when the murder took place then you may have little difficulty in concluding she was involved in the murder, for the simple reason that anyone who participated in the act or murder whilst she was in the house could only have done so with her complicity and consent".

Later he said: "My views are there for you to consider. They should be accepted or rejected according to your own independent judgment as to their intrinsic merit."

"The learned trial judge erred in encouraging the jury to conclude that the deceased was lying prone at the time the first blow was struck when the evidence was equivocal and his reliance on the absence of defensive injuries ignored the fact that the condition of the body when examined could not permit such a conclusion."

Reference was made in oral argument to the skeleton argument. What was said in writing was that "the scenario depicted by the appellant (sic) was consistent with the medical evidence but the manner in which the evidence was summed up the learned trial judge was liable to have caused the jury to exclude this scenario as a reasonable possibility.

Thus the skeleton argument did not advance any other scenario than that advanced by the applicant in her "fresh" evidence before this court. In oral argument reference was made by counsel to the statement of Dr Cassidy made for the purposes of the preliminary enquiry but she gave evidence and we have read the transcript of her evidence. Counsel for the applicant accepted that there was no bony trauma found which would be expected if a heavy weapon was being used to inflict the injuries to his head. It appears to be common case that a heavy weapon was used. Dr Murphy was not challenged on this point. The medical opinion of Dr Cassidy and the evidence of Dr Murphy indicated that the deceased did not move after the first blow to the face (or forehead) was struck. They did not use the language of legal certainty. However in our view the trial judge was entitled to sum up the effect of their evidence in the way that he did. The jury were entitled to take the view that the deceased was lying on his bed asleep at 3.30 am in the morning, having consumed a substantial amount of alcohol and was defenceless when he was struck by at least three heavy blows from a baseball bat or weapon of that kind. The argument made at ground 8 is an attempt to encourage the court to accept the possibility that the applicant's most recent version of the events of the night might be true. We have dealt with this at a later section of this judgment and there is nothing to be gained by repeating it here.

Whether or not the new evidence is received, the learned trial judge ought to have emphasized the inherent improbability that the appellant (sic) would have been party to any plan or conduct involving the murder of her husband in the circumstances suggested by the Crown.

In the applicant's skeleton argument it is stated that the circumstances included a violent struggle involving at least two men (including the deceased) in the matrimonial bedroom at a time when the appellant's (sic) two young children were in the next room. The appellant (sic) had tried to avoid arranging a babysitter and had declined Mrs McGirr's offer to take the children for the night. The deceased had to be removed from the house. The bedroom had to be redecorated and the furniture replaced. All of these factors militate against the suggestion that the deceased's killing was planned or premeditated.

The learned trial judge erred in undermining the importance of the evidence that it was the deceased who had arranged a babysitter for the night in question and that the appellant (sic) had exhibited a reluctance to make the child-minding arrangements, when this evidence was central to the issue whether she had planned or conspired to murder her husband and was therefore of considerable relevant to the question whether she would have been a party to any such offence.

The gist of this ground is repeated in the skeleton argument. In oral argument the court was urged to take Grounds 9 and 10 together. Reference was made to the passage in the judge's charge to the jury as follows:-

"I was about to turn to the events of 12 and 13 August. You may feel the consideration of what happened on the night of 12, 13 August must begin with the decision of McGinley to go out that night. In interview with Mrs McGinley she claimed that she wasn't particularly anxious to go out. It was Gerald's idea and she told the interviewers he bought clothes on the afternoon of 12 August and he pressed her to arrange for a babysitter. You heard from Miss McGirr who told you that she was working on Friday night 11 August and that evening her mother received a call from Julie McGinley asking Miss McGirr to baby sit the following night. The next morning while she was in bed Julie McGinley arrived asking Miss McGirr to baby sit. She got up and spoke to her and told her that she could not baby sit because she was going to a birthday party and Mrs McGirr intervened and said that she would take the children into her house and look after them. Mrs McGinley declined. It has been suggested to you that this betokened a lack of enthusiasm on Mrs McGinley's part. Attention has been drawn to the fact that it was Gerry who telephoned Miss Edwards to see if she would baby sit, and that call was received about 10 minutes to 10 on Saturday evening, 12 August. Furthermore, it is claimed it was Gerry McGinley who telephoned Michael Monaghan to ask if he would join Julie and him for a drink. Mr MacDonald says all of this is indicative of Gerry McGinley being a moving force behind the arrangements for 12 August. Of course, Mr Gallagher makes the point that if Mr Monaghan was planning to kill Gerald McGinley the last thing he would have done would be to respond affirmatively to an invitation issued by the man who he was planning to kill. He would not want to be seen in the company of that man on the very night that he was planning to kill him.

The trial judge added:

"While it is a matter for you, you may think that whether it was Julie McGinley or Gerald McGinley who was the moving force behind the outing on the night of 12 August not a great deal turns on this issue'."

Counsel was reminded by the court that the trial judge went on to say:-

"The defence say that it is important because if Julie and Mr Monaghan did not plan to be out that evening it would be unusual to carry out the murder of Gerald McGinley as an opportunistic enterprise. Surely the suggestion seems to be that if these two were involved in the murder that they would have been more adept at arranging the killing. You may feel that it is necessary to decide whether Gerald was the moving force for the outing. We don't know what he would say about that and we only have the word at interview and not in the witness box of the defendants as to what the arrangements were that evening. They have chosen not to give evidence about that or any other matter, but even if Gerald McGinley instigated the outing you will have to go on and consider whether that makes the hatching of the plan between Julie McGinley and Michael Monaghan to kill Gerald McGinley inherently unlikely. I will be coming to consider the telephone traffic for this evening presently but it will be open to you to include I suggest that once the arrangements were in place that there was a considerable volume of telephone traffic between Julie McGinley and Michael Monaghan. One way of looking at the matter is this, that if Julie McGinley and Michael Monaghan had determined that Gerald McGinley should be killed, the opportunity to carry out that crime might not in the normal course of events be readily available. Even if the evening out was Gerald McGinley's idea you will have to address the question does that make it inherently unlikely that the plotters would seize the opportunity that was thus presented to them."

The suggestion contained in Ground 9 is that there was a "violent struggle" whereas the evidence of Dr Cassidy and Dr Murphy pointed to an attack on a man lying on his bed asleep and defenceless who was rendered unconscious by the first blow that was struck. It was argued that whether there was or was not a violent struggle, there was clearly considerable violence used in the bedroom involving at least two individuals in which the deceased was killed.

The learned trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of Garda McDonagh to the effect that the appellant (sic) McGinley wanted him "out of the way".

In their skeleton argument counsel for the applicant argued that this was prima facie inadmissible on the ground that it was hearsay evidence. In oral argument it was contended that it was seriously prejudicial and it appeared to provide evidence not only of motive but intent. But counsel conceded that the evidence was given without objection. There were objections to other parts of Garda McDonagh's evidence which the trial judge upheld and in these circumstances we consider that there is no substance in this ground of appeal. He also ruled in evidence statements by the deceased to Garda McDonagh on the grounds that they were tendered for the purpose of showing his state of mind, not for the purpose of proving the truth of what was said. As there was no objection to the evidence this ground of appeal must fail.

This was an additional ground of appeal and reads:-

Whether or not the trial judge considered that the alternative verdict of Assisting Offenders was open to person charged with the offence of murder on appropriate occasions, it was not open on this occasion.

Unless the trial judge put it forward without evidence as a theory to the jury, an appeal based on the introduction by him of such an alternative would have been successful on the ground that it offered a compromise when there was no evidence justifying a compromise.

This was a late application to admit fresh evidence. Before embarking on an examination of this ground, it is worthwhile to recall the basic principles which govern the reception of "fresh" evidence.

The statutory framework is to be found in the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (the 1980 Act):

"25.-(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the Court of Appeal may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice –

(a) order the production of any document, exhibit, or other thing connected with the proceedings, the production of which appears to the Court necessary for the determination of the case;

(b) order any witness who would have been a compellable witness at the trial to attend and be examined before the Court, whether or not he was called at the trial; and

(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced at the trial.

(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to –

(a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;

(b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;

(c) whether the evidence would have been admissible at the trial on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and

(d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at the trial."

We are satisfied that she was a willing party to a plan in early June 2000 to plant drugs, including heroin and cocaine, in her husband's car so that he would be sent to prison for a long time and enable her to divorce him and obtain custody of the children. She borrowed £3000 from her father at that time, it appears from the documents. We are satisfied that, if so, this can be explained as it was needed to pay off the drug suppliers and Mr McNern. Her story that she tried to back out of the plan to send her husband to prison for a significant period of time and to dissuade him from travelling in his BMW car in which she had planted the drugs is not capable of belief. If she had wanted to back out, she had only to "find" the package in the car, draw it to his attention and get him to bring it to the police or take it herself to the police.

In view of our rejection of the version of events given by her about what happened in the main bedroom, we are satisfied that the remainder was concocted in order to explain away her failure to call the police. Her attempt to blacken the names of her husband's parents was, we consider, because they had given damaging evidence against her at the trial. She admitted all the events that she knew that she could not deny. The events which she now seeks to rely on in order to exonerate her are not capable of belief.

If one could believe that she was not a consenting party to the murder, then her story would afford a ground for allowing the appeal and a jury could substitute a conviction for assisting offenders. As we are satisfied that the evidence is incapable of belief, this question does not arise.

The answer is that significant parts would have been admissible, if credible, but in our view it would have been rejected by the jury as not capable of belief, as we have rejected it.

Mrs McGinley must have believed that her best and only realistic chance of an acquittal was to adhere to the story which she had told the police. Insofar as it is sought to explain why she did not give evidence at trial to the same effect as she has given to this court, she must have hoped that her statement on 24 August 2005 and the evidence which she gave in court would be accepted as capable of belief. We have, of course, listened to Mr Quinn and Dr Pollock who were called on her behalf, with open minds because we declined to consider whether her evidence was capable of belief until we had heard the evidence called on her behalf and the evidence which was presented by Dr Joseph and Detective Sergeant Ferris on behalf of the Crown. We had also to take into account her GP's evidence and the medical records of Mr McGinley.

i. Julie McGinley experienced some difficulties in her relationship with her parents, specifically that her father was authoritarian in nature and her mother acquiescent and passive in the face of this. An experience of sexual abuse with a neighbour will have heightened these difficulties.

ii. These early experiences are likely to have led to a reduced sense of self-efficacy, low self-esteem and possible tendencies towards self-blame.

iii. Such experiences and consequences could lead to the development of unhealthy dependency on others in relationships and tolerance for abusive behaviour.

iv. These difficulties in combination with other significant life traumas (involvement in Enniskillen bomb and a riding accident) are likely to have led to the development of personality disorder.

v. This situation is likely to have led to unhealthy or even dangerous consequences not only for herself but others dependent on her such as children.

vi. This appears to have been most starkly demonstrated in her marriage to Mr Gerry McGinley. This marriage was highly dysfunctional and abusive and Mrs McGinley did not appear to have the resources necessary to deal with it in an appropriate manner. Indeed she repeatedly returned to this destructive situation. This likely reflects her dependent/masochistic personality disorder features.

vii. It was against this background that Mr Gerry McGinley was murdered.

"1. With respect to the issue of whether Mrs McGinley's personality difficulties/disorder ("condition") would have made her abnormally vulnerable or susceptible to pressure from her co-accused, I would reiterate the following information outlined in my original report. In my opinion Julie McGinley has exhibited signs or symptoms of dependent personality disorder. Such a disorder is characterised as a pattern of excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive behaviour and fear of separation. This includes features such as requiring excessive reassurance to make everyday decisions, needs for others to assume responsibility, fear of being alone, quickly seeking another close relationship if one ends, overlooking objective problems in order to maintain relationships and fear of disagreeing with others for fear of alienating them. Given this, whilst Mrs McGinley would have intellectually been aware of her actions and their possible consequences, her personality difficulties/disorder would have strongly influenced her behaviour regardless of this. Given the aforementioned features of personality disorder it is likely that she would have been vulnerable and susceptible to the influence of others she was dependent on, Indeed features such as this are known to become exaggerated at times of stress in a person's life.

2. With respect to the issue of whether her 'condition' itself could explain why she did not give her current version of events to police or at her trial, I would offer the following comments. Firstly Mrs McGinley claimed that she came under heavy pressure from her co-accused following the murder of her husband to deny all knowledge of this. This, she claims, influenced her version of events given to the police. I have already acknowledged that her personality difficulties/disorder could have significantly influenced this situation. In addition to this Mrs McGinley claims that her legal team mounted a defence based on her total innocence of and lack of knowledge or involvement in the murder of Mr G. McGinley. Julie McGinley claims that aspects of her history and relationship with Mr McGinley were not introduced because they might imply motive and therefore weaken her case. Whatever the accuracy of these statements Mrs McGinley cites these as the main reasons why her 'current version of events' did not emerge at her trial."

"In short, therefore, I am not reassured that there will not be future crisis and I believe that Gerry may be potentially at risk of self-harm. Superficially Julie appears to be a confident and capable person but she is very much the dominant partner in the marriage. Thereby, I feel that she is prone to stress and unresolved emotions and may not be coping. There is a note on 28 January 1998: 'making a slow recovery, wife looking after him."

The court then handed down the medical records of Mr McGinley to the parties as there were no copies so that copies could be made of the relevant extracts for each side. He said that the Millan self-report inventory was open to falsification.

In cross-examination he said that he had not had access to her educational records. He did not look at her prison in-mate medical records. He had not access to them at the time of preparing his report. On balance and having considered everything about her, he would not describe her as a manipulative person.

He had not read her interview notes with the police. He agreed that she had manipulated her GP at one point, certainly from the time that her husband disappeared. He had not been provided with the court papers in the case.

Dr Pollock, a consultant forensic clinical psychologist, reported to the Public Prosecution Service on Mrs McGinley, but was called on her behalf. His report, which he adopted in evidence, was dated 20 October 2005.

He stated the following opinions:-

"1. Mrs. McGinley adamantly denies that she was directly involved in the actual killing of her husband. She was present within the household as alleged when the killing was committed by other parties. She denies any involvement in a conspiracy or plot with other parties to kill her husband. The relevance of the diagnosis of personality disorder to explain any alleged contribution to the killing of the victim cannot be considered, given her claims of innocence. The presence of personality disorder does not have any clinical relevance or explanatory value to account for any direct involvement in the killing of the victim, unless Mrs McGinley is proposing that she was placed under duress, pressure and threat from other parties to take part in the killing and acted to secure her dependency needs within the relationship with Mr Monaghan through participation. I did discuss with Mrs McGinley whether she may have been motivated to become involved in the killing of her husband to secure escape from abuse, to remove Mr McGinley to permit pursuit of her relationship with Mr Monaghan or whether victim rage and hatred emerging from years of abuse had prompted conspiracy to kill her husband. Mrs McGinley denying any of these psychological motivations to be relevant.

2. If it is accepted by the Court that Mrs McGinley did suffer from a personality disorder, the presence of this disorder would explain her tolerance of abuse and violent conduct by her husband within her marriage. If it is accepted that Mr Monaghan placed interpersonal pressure on Mrs McGinley following the killing, the presence of this personality disorder would also likely account for her complicity, deception and collusion with Mr Monaghan after the killing of the victim. Mrs McGinley admits that she showed intentional deception towards others, lied repeatedly and colluded with Mr Monaghan in terms of the account offered to the police and court. Mrs McGinley argues that her dependency transferred from her marital relationship with Mr McGinley during an abusive marriage to her relationship with Mr Monaghan, wishing to sustain this relationship at all costs because of her dependency needs, subjugation and submissiveness and her fear of the consequences of antagonising or confronting Mr Monaghan. There is evidence that Mrs McGinley conspired with other parties, including Mr Monaghan, to have Mr McGinley charged with possession of drugs as a strategy to remove him from her life for a period of time, Mrs McGinley claiming that she acted on the initiative of Mr Monaghan and Mr McNern and did not actively or personally instigate this plot. She argues that she passively participated with this plot rather than instigated its execution. A diagnosis of dependent personality disorder with features of submissiveness, passivity, subjugation, tolerance of abuse and poor self-worth within relationships is relevant in Mrs McGinley's case when formulating her behaviours within the marital relationship and with Mr Monaghan, only if it is accepted that Mr Monaghan placed pressure upon Mrs McGinley to conform and abide through threat and dominating action."

The inmate prison medical records to which Dr Joseph obtained access disclosed nothing which would support a diagnosis of dependent personality disorder.

"1. Despite experiencing traumatic events during her teenage years, the defendant did not develop any symptoms of mental disorder, and on the basis of her educational records she appears to have been a resilient, strong-willed, determined person who was considered emotionally well adjusted to take up a position in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. She was able to make her own decision to leave school a year early in order to travel to Australia. There is no evidence to support a diagnosis of dependent personality disorder from the documents that I have read.

2. The only evidence to support the finding of a dependent personality pattern is contained in the answers that the appellant has given when completing the Millen. At this stage it is necessary to look at the precise answers the appellant gave to the questions contained in the inventory. It needs to be borne in mind that not only does the inventory requires her to answer truthfully, but some of her answers may have reflected the appellant being overly negative about herself which might affect the validity of the results.

3. If the defendant was in fact suffering from features of a dependent, masochistic or avoidant personality, then they are likely to have been mild and confined to her husband. I find it difficult to accept that following the disappearance of her husband she could have immediately transferred her dependency to Mr Monaghan to such an extent that she would have been aware and yet felt powerless to report the matter to the police. The appellant said to me that the reason she did not tell the truth about her husband's death was because she feared for her life and the lives of her family from paramilitary groups. This explanation has nothing to do with whether or not the appellant was suffering from a dependent or any other form of personality disorder."

Dr Joseph gave evidence based on his observations of Mrs McGinley in the witness-box. We had the same opportunity. If her change of story had been capable of belief, there would have been no reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.

Our conclusions in respect of the application of Mrs McGinley

We reject her contention that there were reasonable grounds for not advancing this evidence at her trial. We are satisfied that she invented that part of it which consists of lies and half-truths later but, assuming that she thought of advancing it before trial, we are satisfied that she freely and voluntarily opted to present the defence which she did, because she believed from the outset that this presented her with the best chance of escaping conviction.

"A person convicted on indictment may appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction –

(a) with the leave of the Court; or

(b) if the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal."

We are satisfied that her conviction is safe. It follows that we are satisfied that the jury could not have had a reasonable doubt about their verdict if they had heard the fresh evidence.

The grounds of appeal

Michael Monaghan

"…. although it appears distasteful that a defendant can ask the judge not to leave a lesser alternative count to the jury, and then, when convicted on the greater count, complain to an appellate court that the alternative count was not left, the interests of justice require, as Lord Clyde stated, that the jury should be able to reach a sound conclusion on the facts in the light of a complete understanding of the law applicable to them."

At para 44 he rejected the view that the leaving of relevant issues to the jury can depend on the way in which the prosecution chooses to present its case. But he did accept at para 45 that there would be cases where it would be unfair to the defendant to leave an alternative verdict to the jury.

At para 61 he said:

"I consider that the House should … hold that, save in exceptional circumstances, an appellate court should quash a conviction, whether for murder or for a lesser offence, as constituting a serious miscarriage of justice where the judge has erred in failing to leave a lesser alternative verdict obviously raised by the evidence."

He supported the test proposed by Lord Bingham at para 23 set out earlier in this judgment.

"The result, making some mockery of our hallowed adversarial procedure which strives to do justice to both sides, is that the appellant is able to have his cake at trial and also to eat it on appeal."

He also referred to Von Starck. He endorsed Lord Clyde's formulation of the law. At para 82 he said that where the duty of the judge is to give a direction on the alternative verdict, counsel have to adjust their speeches to the jury to take account of that prospective direction.

At para 84 he said:

"Since the duty to put the possibility of a viable alternative verdict before the jury exists to promote the interest of justice ….. it will not apply in circumstances where giving the direction would not serve those interests and might indeed undermine the fairness of the trial. For instance, there might be cases where it could properly be said that one or other of the parties was prejudiced because, if they had realised that the alternative verdict was going to be left to the jury, they would have examined or cross-examined the witnesses differently or would have led other evidence. If the prejudice was significant and could not be avoided or mitigated at that stage, the overall interests of justice might mean that the duty to direct on the alternative verdict would not apply."

He went on to say at para 85 that as a result of such a misdirection which would amount to a material misdirection in law an appellate court would have to quash the conviction, if they thought that, by reason of the misdirection, the conviction was unsafe.

If one had been giving particulars of the offence of assisting offenders under the Criminal Law Act they would have been in identical terms. The Bill of Indictment was numbered 9/2002. Shortly before the trial commenced and with the acquiescence of counsel for the defence a fresh Bill of Indictment number 9A/2000 was presented, omitting the second count. It was plain that the Crown was intent on proceeding with the charge of murder and was not seeking a lesser verdict. It was plain that the defence acquiesced.

Mr Gallagher told the court that when he personally became aware that the Crown were proceeding only on the count of murder, he took Mr Monaghan's instructions and junior counsel took a note of same and there was a written note to Mr Monaghan that as counsel took the view that the evidence in respect of the murder was not strong, on balance he was better off without the second count. In any event the Crown was entitled to proceed on the new indictment, not least as counsel for both defendants consented to it.

"These cases bear out the conclusion, which we should in any event have reached, that the judge is obliged to leave the lesser alternative only if this is necessary in the interests of justice. Such interests will never be served in a situation where the lesser verdict simply does not arise on the way in which the case has been presented to the court: for example if the defence has never sought to deny that the full offence charged has been committed, but challenges that it was committed by the defendant. Again there may be instances where there was at one stage a question which would, if pursued, have left open the possibility of a lesser verdict, but which, in the light of the way the trial has developed, has simply ceased to be a live issue. In these and other situations it would only be harmful to confuse the Jury by advising them of the possibility of a verdict which could make no sense."

In R v Maxwell [1988] 1 WLR 1265 at 1270 D-E Mustill LJ, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal said:

"The judge should always use his powers to ensure, so far as practicable, that the issues left to the jury fairly reflect the issues which arise on the evidence."

Later at page 1270 G-H he said:

"To interfere with the verdict would require us to identify solid grounds for suspecting that the members of the jury had foresworn their oaths by deliberately returning a verdict of guilty when they were not sure of it, simply to avoid an unwanted outcome."

"The authorities make it clear that an alternative verdict should only be left if it is one to which "a jury could reasonably come" (per Lord Clyde in Von Starck at page 1275: see also Mustill LJ in Fairbanks, page 1205, "unless the alternative really arise on the issues as presented at the trial").

Lord Mance also distanced himself from Lord Ackner's remarks in Maxwell and said at para 100 in Coutts:

"… where … an obvious alternative verdict presents itself in respect of some more than trifling offences and can without injustice to left for the jury to consider, the judge should in fairness ensure that this is done, even if the alternative only arises on the defence case in circumstances where as a matter of law there should apart from that alternative be a complete acquittal."

We start with some basic propositions. The jury must have been aware of the ingredients of the crime of murder. They were told them in the clearest possible terms. They must have known and acted on the basis that the onus of proof lay with the Crown and that the standard of proof was proof beyond reasonable doubt.

They were directed by the trial judge that unless they were sure that the murder took place in the matrimonial bedroom of the McGinleys, they must acquit Mrs McGinley and Mr Monaghan. They must have been sure that the murder took place in the matrimonial bedroom.

The evidence that Mrs McGinley was in the house was incontrovertible. As we have already discussed in connection with Mrs McGinley's case, the conclusion that the murder took place in the bedroom must inevitably have led to the conclusion that she was a party to the murder. She could have killed him herself as he lay asleep, using the baseball bat. It is highly unlikely but it is just possible. However she was bound to have realized before the murder took place that it would take two strong men to lift a heavy body out of the bedroom and into a vehicle to be driven away and dumped. There was evidence that he was a heavy man.

If, as is highly likely, someone else struck the fatal blows Mrs McGinley knew who had done so and who had helped to move the body. So there were two people available to remove the body and help with the cleaning up.

"… an alternative verdict should only be left if it is one to which a jury could reasonably come" per Lord Clyde and "unless the alternative really arise on the issues as presented at the trial" as per Mustill LJ.

We adopt what Mustill LJ said in Maxwell:

"To interfere with the verdict would require us to identify solid grounds for suspecting that the members of the jury had foresworn their oaths by deliberately returning a verdict of guilty when they were not sure of it, simply to avoid an unwarranted outcome" per Mustill LJ in Maxwell.

We have borne in mind what Callinan J said in the Australian case of Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414 approved by the House of Lords in Coutts.

Accordingly this argument, most persuasively advanced by Mr Gallagher QC, who was counsel for Campbell, fails.

Statement of Julie McGinley

(signed on 24 August 2005)

"I am 34 years of age, my date of birth being 10 August 1971. On 15th October 1994 I married Gerry McGinley We lived at Derryraghan, Ballinamallard and had two children, S aged 10 born on 31 July 1995 and C aged 8 born on 30 April 1997.

Gerry McGinley had always been of a volatile, domineering and often violent nature. He had a conviction for Rape, which he had explained as really a case of consensual sex. On several occasions he physically assaulted me but I felt compelled to stay and deal with the situation as best I could. On 18th October 1997, he attempted suicide. He became increasingly unbalanced emotionally and became very irrational and unreasonable on a daily basis. Often he would not return home until the early hours, sometimes drunk, and he had several sexual relationships with other women. He became obsessed with pornography and began to demand that I have sex with other men, at his instigation. When I refused he told me I had to do it. I didn't know what to do or how to deal with him. This pressure was daily and grew in its intensity. I continued to object but was eventually forced into having sex with two other men at his instigation. Whenever I objected, the level of abuse and violence increased. He physically assaulted me on a number of occasions.

Eventually, on 30th December 1999, I did manage to leave him and went with the children to live at my father's address for one week, and then in rented accommodation at 7 Glebe Park Enniskillen. During our separation, Gerry rang me countless times every day. This occurred throughout the night as well, with the majority of the calls being of a very threatening nature and some being suicidal. In January 2000, after we had separated, I had to ring 999 after Gerry and another man, who later turned out to be his brother James McGinley, broke into my rear garden at Glebe Park. On several occasions he had threatened to burn the house down.

When I told Gerry I had been advised to get a non-molestation order he laughed and said he'd only have need to break it once. He said he had plenty of people to do his dirty work for him and also claimed to be in the IRA. His family have strong Republican connections.

The tactics he adopted to get me back ranged from pleading to be allowed to. call at my rented home to threatening my life when I refused. I eventually agreed that he could call, which resulted in him staying all day until late at night every single day. He kept asking me to return to the homehouse at Derryraghan. I refused, saying things were better left as they were. He wouldn't accept this and said I had to trust him that there would be no more pressure to see others and that his behaviour towards me would improve. When I continued to refuse, he changed tactics. In mid-January 2000, he said he had a copy of a video tape he had taken of me with another man and the following day he arrived at my father's house threatening to put the tape on in front of my father if I didn't return. He also threatened to show it to all my friends and work colleagues from BT. I was physically and emotionally exhausted and could not stand further pressure and threats. In addition there was financial pressure as I was unable to pay the mortgage whilst paying private rent also.

I had no choice but to return to Derryraghan and could tell no-one of my reasons for having to do so. Gerry had emptied my home of all its contents, including my children's toys and belongings. On the day I had left, he burnt the Christmas toys that my daughters had received in front of them in a bonfire in our rear yard.

His overall behaviour toward me improved slightly for a while after my return at the end of January 2000. We discussed our difficulties and agreed that the haulage business he was running was causing considerable strain. He agreed to look for a different line of business. At end of February 2000, Gerry and I met Michael Monaghan. He was in Enniskillen quite often at Parke Furniture on the Tempo Road. He had purchased a German Shepherd pup from us the previous summer in response to a newspaper advert but neither of us had had any contact with him since then.

Business was discussed, including the haulage of furniture from London to Enniskillen. Gerry went as far as buying a 45 foot trailer from TK Trailers, Portadown. On occasions both Gerry and I would call and speak to Michael Monaghan at Parke Furniture. On every occasion I called my daughters were present.

At times when my home situation became very difficult I spoke to Monaghan about it. He seemed sympathetic and understanding.

On 17th March 2000, Gerry produced a gun outside the kitchen window. Both children and I were panic-stricken. He left saying he was going to shoot John Maguire, a man I had seen on several occasions. Minutes later he returned to the house and told me to go and wash the car. This was typical of his behaviour, going from one extreme to another.

Problems at home continued to escalate. His drinking increased, as did his disruptive behaviour in the house. He played music at full volume in the middle of the night and switched on all the house lights, even in the children's bedroom. I attended Dr Long's surgery on a number of occasions. I was unable to work due to suffering stress, anxiety attacks and insomnia. She prescribed temazapan in mid April 2000.

Gerry continued to be very abusive, mainly verbally, but often physically as well. On one occasion, he smashed his Cavalier car into my BMW' s rear passenger door.

Around May 2000, a relationship developed between Michael Monaghan and me. It was mainly telephone contact. On reflection it wasn't of much substance and was more a source of comfort. At the end of June or early July 2000 this graduated into a - brief sexual relationship.

During a week long holiday to Gran Canaria between 28 May and 4 June 2000, Gerry put me under immense pressure to get involved with others. When I refused, he threatened to suffocate me with a pillow. On one particular night he dragged me onto the apartment balcony and threatened to throw me over. I was in contact with Michael Monaghan by telephone twice and discussed the situation. By the Friday of the holiday he had told me that he was sorting something out and to contact him immediately upon my return.

I acknowledge that when I returned home a plan was arranged by Michael and Tony McNern, involving myself putting drugs in Gerry McGinley's car, so that he would be arrested and imprisoned for long enough for me and the children to move away. I went along with it as I felt at the time I had no other option. I did try to back out of the idea but McNern made it clear it was too late to back out as arrangements had gone too far. I tried to dissuade Gerry from travelling in the BMW where the drugs had been placed but he refused. The drugs had been provided through Michael by Tony McNern who claimed he got them from a dealer. Initially I was told no money was required but later McNern was given money after threats were made to me by himself.

Later, on a night in July 2000, Gerry had attempted to get Michael Monaghan to return to our house after a night out in the Fort Lodge. Gerry tried to pressurise Michael into sleeping with me. He said we were married in name only and it was an open arrangement. When Michael refused Gerry started pushing and shoving him. Gerry asked "is there something wrong with my wife." Michael knew I didn't want anything to do with this. At this stage Michael was aware of the video, referred to above. In an attempt to dissuade Gerry from persisting with his aggressive behaviour, Michael told him that the furniture business they ran was a front for Michael's IRA activities. Gerry backed down and Michael left. I actually drove him back to PJ's [flat].

On 5th August 2000 Gerry again instigated a night out and asked Michael Monaghan and PJ to accompany us. On this occasion PJ overheard Gerry asking different men in the disco would they come back to our home and sleep with me. PJ came back over to Michael and me and told us. I had only met PJ for the first time in late July 2000.

On the evening of Friday 11th August 2000, Gerry told me we were going out on the Saturday night, and that I was to find a baby sitter. I called at Mary McGirr's house, during which time he actually sat in the car waiting on me to make sure that I did it. Mary McGirr said to call back in the morning. I called back at about 0830 on Saturday 12th August 2000 and I spoke to Patricia, her daughter, who said she was unable to do it. Her mother, Mary McGirr, offered to keep the girls in her home. I said I would let her know, despite the fact that I didn't want to go out I felt I had no choice but ask Patricia, in case Gerry rang or met her and found out that I hadn't. I made no further effort to find a babysitter and told Gerry I couldn't get one. He became very angry as the afternoon wore on and refused to settle for this. He made it clear that his intention was to see someone back at our home. We had only returned home a short time when he said he was returning to Furniture Direct, his business premises, and would be back in a few hours. He rang me a short time later from the shop on the pretence of needing a telephone number from the Auto Trader book. He asked again had I found a babysitter. His tone was threatening and said he would call back to check.

During this time, I made several calls to Michael Monaghan and told him Gerry was insisting we both went out and that his intentions weren't good. Gerry had made it very clear that he expected me to have sex with Michael Monaghan. Michael kept telling me to make excuses or to let him go alone. I said he was insisting that I went too. I made several calls to Monaghan and he made several back. During the conversations Michael Monaghan stated that Gerry had bombarded him with calls, trying to pressurise him to go out, as Monaghan had been telling Gerry he didn't want to go out. I asked Michael would he go to the Fort Lodge if I had to go. He said he would. Gerry returned around 9 p.m., still in an aggressive mood. There was no fobbing him off about us not going out.

He rang Heather Edwards and asked would she baby-sit. She agreed, providing we were back for 12.30- 1 a.m. He agreed but when he came off the phone he was still ranting and raving. He made me ring my brother Andrew, who luckily couldn't baby sit. I asked again would he not leave it or go on his own. He was raging, and said if I didn't go with him and find someone to bring back he'd bring someone back himself. After what PJ overheard the previous week, I had no doubt that he would. I managed to make a call to Michael Monaghan and told him the situation. I asked him again would he go to the Fort Lodge. He said he would.

I said to Gerry we would have to go to the Fort Lodge as we had very little time but even at this stage his plans could have changed at any moment and he could have decided to go elsewhere. He had earlier mentioned Omagh. He told me directly that I had to bring someone home "to have a bit of fun", as he put it.

Gerry had me completely undermined. I had no say at all in what went on. To escape his temper and abuse, I had to do whatever he wanted. In bad temper he had also threatened me regarding the children and referred to the fact that they were two girls and said that since I was no use to him it was a good thing two more were coming along.

At this particular moment in time I felt the best way to try to handle this situation was to try to encourage Michael to return.

En route to the Fort Lodge hotel, Gerry rang Michael and asked him would he come out for a drink. He agreed. Once in the hotel his humour lightened although when he addressed me his tone was still abusive and it was a case of "well, is he definitely coming back?" This intensified as the night wore on and as his alcohol intake increased. Michael Monaghan and PJ arrived about 20 minutes after us.

I tried to get Gerry to leave at 12.30, referring to Heather Edwards expecting us then. He refused as I was unable to give him a straight answer whether or not Michael was returning. Michael did not want to and kept telling me to make excuses because this was like a re-run of the episode three weeks earlier in July. Gerry kept asking him if he would come back. Michael was non-committal and suggested leaving it for another night but Gerry refused to let up. In the end, Michael told Gerry he would follow us home in the taxi within a short space of time.

This caused Gerry to become even angrier with me and he was very abusive in the car going home. He blamed me for wasting his night and accused me of not wanting or trying to persuade Michael to return with us. I said very little in reply as I knew from past experience it was better not to answer him back. On arriving home, he stormed out of the car and went around the back of the house. The only reason I can think of as to why he did that was to avoid seeing Heather Edwards. As soon as he heard Heather and me getting into the car, he came round the side of the house and went inside. I left Heather home and returned to my own house.

As soon as I went inside, Gerry demanded that I ring the Fort Lodge and see if Michael had left. With Gerry standing at my side, I rang and left a message with whoever answered the phone. Minutes later Michael rang me back. He knew I couldn't talk and asked had Gerry settled. I said "no" and he said he would ring back shortly. I was also told by Michael to tell Gerry he was buying a carry-out. I relayed this back to Gerry who said for my sake he had better come up. He continued being abusive and forced me to drink a glass of whiskey telling me that I didn't want to do anything for him anymore. His tone was very aggressive, laying the blame on me as usual. I said very little in return as arguing was pointless and only made him angrier. This exchange took place in the living room.

At 3.25am the phone rang. Gerry told me to answer it. It was Michael again wanting to know did Gerry still want him up. When I said yes he said to tell him he would be up shortly. This did very little to pacify Gerry. When I came off the phone he called Michael a "fucking timewaster" and said that he had no intentions of coming up. He also said that it was my fault for us having gone to the Fort Lodge. He even went as far as saying to me: "get back in the fucking car and bring the first cunt you can find back home with you". When I tried to reason with him, he said that if Michael didn't come up he would go out and bring someone home. After what PJ had overheard the previous week, I believed it.

He went in the direction of the bedroom and I remained in the living room. Minutes later Michael's van drove up to our lane and parked along the fence next to Michael Murphy's property. Both Michael and PJ got out. Both men had a can of Harp in their hands and were drinking from them. They came into the hail. Michael asked where Gerry was and I said that he had headed for our bedroom. Michael told PJ to see where Gerry was. Seconds later, I heard Gerry shouting from the bedroom "What are you doing here you fucking cunt?" PJ then shouted out in terror. There were crashing noises and the sounds of a commotion. Michael headed for the room and I went into the girls' bedroom. I was terrified by what was happening and was very concerned that the girls would be disturbed and distressed by the noise.

There was a lot of shouting. Gerry was roaring, apparently in pain and also in bad temper. He was shouting things like "you bastards, you dirty bastards". I did not hear PJ shouting at this stage. However, I heard Michael repeatedly shouting "stay there, will you fucking stay there". I could also hear a lot of noise which sounded like fighting and loud "slapping" or "whacking" noises. I lay on C's bed with my hands over her ears. She awoke momentarily. I kept talking to her, with her head drawn into my chest, and she drifted back to sleep.

I stayed in the girls' bedroom until I heard the main bedroom door open. Opening my door a little, I could see PJ standing in the hall dazed and in shock. He had blood on his hands. I asked him what had happened but he wouldn't speak. He went straight into the bathroom and it sounded like he was being sick. I could also hear the tap running and him washing his hands.

The main bedroom door was slightly open. When I went to push it open further it was slammed with considerable force in my face. I asked PJ again what happened and he kept shaking his head. He was also apparently in a lot of pain. The bedroom door opened and Michael came out. He looked very shaken up. He said he thought Gerry was dead.

I went to the bedroom door and looked round it. Gerry was lying on the ground with his back to the door and close to the built-in wardrobe. One arm was out-stretched above his head. There was a lot of blood with some on -the carpet, some smeared across the quilt cover and some on two walls. There were hand marks smeared in various places along the walls. The chest of drawers which had been located just inside the door was broken into bits, as was the bedside locker on the far side of the bed. The baseball bat that Gary kept beside the bed at night was lying on the floor.

Michael entered the kitchen and said what had happened in the bedroom. PJ was also present and did not contradict Michael's account of what had taken place. According to Michael, he had entered the bedroom literally seconds after hearing Gerry roaring at PJ and PJ shouting out in fear. Gerry was on top of PJ on the bed with his hands around his throat, throttling him. Michael initially attempted to drag Gerry off him by grabbing him under the armpits from behind. He couldn't manage this so he lifted the baseball bat and struck Gerry across the back with it. According to Michael, Gerry immediately turned and attempted to go headlong for him.

When relating the events in the kitchen, Michael was highly agitated. Once he began to talk about the fight, he became visibly angry and continually swore, referring to Gerry. The sorts of things he was saying were:

"Why would he not stop, why did he keep coming at me?"

"You seen him PJ, he just wouldn't stop."

"Such a mental fucking bastard, he must have been possessed by the devil himself"

"I kept telling him to stay there and he kept coming at me."

"I need to think, I need to fucking think."

He would ask PJ:

"how could any normal man take a thump like that and still get up and go for me?"

"He must have been the devil, was he the fucking devil? "

PJ was half crying and kept mumbling "I don't know Mick". I had initially felt nothing but shock and numbness. However, as Michael was talking and it started to dawn on me what had taken place, I became distraught and hysterical. I remember repeatedly asking "what is going to happen?" I was told that a whole lot of serious bother was going to happen.

Michael retrieved temazapan from the kitchen cupboard and made me take some. PJ attempted to pour himself another whiskey and was told if he thought that he was going to sit and get drunk that he would have the bottle smashed round him. Michael repeatedly kept stating how the McGinleys were never going to let this go and that someone's blood would spill for it.

I asked how things had got so out of hand that Gerry was actually killed as a result. In response to that I was asked several times — had I any idea what Gerry had been like in that room? I was told that Gerry had lifted a bedside unit and thrown it straight at Michael and then attempted to grab the bat. Michael said he had to keep hitting Gerry to keep him back and that Michael was fighting for dear life and for everyone else in the house. Michael was saying that if Gerry had wrestled the bat off him he would have killed everyone, children included.

Michael then asked PJ "what are we going to do with him" and about having to get him lifted. When I asked about getting the police, Michael looked at me in total incredulity and asked me several times if I was "right in the head". He asked me had I any idea what that would lead to. I said no. He listed what was likely to happen and what would definitely happen.

My father and brothers and I would be shot; my family would be burnt in their beds some night; Michael's family and PJ's elderly mother would be burnt; all of us would definitely go to jail for years; my two daughters would be handed over to the McGinleys; and I would not see them for years. He stated categorically that under no account was he going to jail for anyone and definitely not because of a "fucking psycho". He asked PJ was he going to jail over a "fucking psycho", to which PJ replied no. He then said did I not think that both the children and I had suffered enough already and that I didn't know what I was saying. Michael pointed at me and kept saying that Gerry was my problem, not his. His words were to the effect 'I wasn't the one married to him, you were. I wasn't being used and abused by him, you were. It was only a matter of time before he done you in or done something to those two wee girls." He pointed out that at no time had he any wish to come near my house but because of me he did. It was only that he was aware of what was in store for me and if he hadn't he would never have come up to my house.

He said if he hadn't brought PJ up "the perverted bastard would have tried to set him up too". PJ backed him up in what he was saying. I could not argue because I knew it was true. He kept asking did I not think of my family and children, what it would put them through and the danger it would place them in.

I was in a state of total fear and confusion. I believed completely that Michael knew what he was talking about. He referred to living in Andersonstown for years and knowing how paramilitaries worked. From my experience of the marital separation, I also knew how the McGinleys had closed ranks and had no regard for me or the children and were prepared to cripple me financially and terrorise me. They helped Gerry to empty my home of its entire contents and hide them in a trailer outside his sister's house in Sligo. They helped him to make copies of the tape in order to blackmail me into signing over the house to him. They helped Gerry in moving all our lorries south of the border. They were aware that Gerry and his brother James terrorised me at night and termed me a dangerous trouble-maker because I had rung the police. Gerry had also threatened to get his cousin Paul McGinley to `do me in'.

I was convinced from my previous experiences that Michael was right. The very idea of being separated from my girls and the thought of them being sent to the McGinleys was a prospect I could not accept. I felt paralysed with fear at the thought of the McGinleys finding out what had happened and was convinced something similar would happen to my brothers and father if they did find out.

Both men stated that on no account were they accepting any responsibility for any part of what had happened and that if I wanted to go to the police I would have to say that I carried out the attack. Michael reiterated what the consequences would be for me, the children and my family. He stated that if it was his son, Ryan, he would sell everything he owned to exact revenge on anyone if they ever harmed a single hair on his head. He said the McGinleys would do the same thing. He said that they sorted things out in their own way and that they still belonged to the "old school". PJ backed Michael and agreed with everything he was saying.

No one knew what to do. The two men were adamant they weren't prepared to get into trouble and did not want the police involved. When it was put to me how I would be taken from the two girls and face a long jail sentence I wasn't prepared for that. It was the last thing I wanted. A decision was made that Gerry would be lifted and taken somewhere. Plastic was removed from my shed, I believe, or else it was in Michael's van. The two men went into the bedroom after moving the van to the gable wall. I was told to make some coffee in the kitchen but after some time I went and stood inside the bedroom door. Gerry's clothing had been removed and placed into a bin-liner. Both men had lifted him onto the plastic and wrapped him in it. I was then told to stand in the children's bed room. He was carried through the kitchen and along the back of the house, before being put into the van via the side door. The van was then parked at rear yard.

Around 8am when the girls woke I kept them in the living room and put on a video tape for them to watch and gave them some breakfast. I also brought the young pup in to distract them. They knew nothing about what had happened. Both Michael and PJ cleared things in the bedroom, lifted out the contents and brought them to the shed. After some time PJ had to lie down on Shannon's bed as he was in a lot of pain.

The rest is more or less as suggested by the Police, with the redecoration of the bedroom, burning clothes and furniture in a fire in the rear yard. Gerry had not been wearing his ring, as it was sitting on the kitchen window-sill. I'm not sure about his watch. Both men completed the decorating and did the burning. As for the paint scraper, mop head, bucket handles, etc., they must have been there from a previous occasion because I don't believe the ones used were burnt at all.

On the Sunday afternoon, Michael and PJ took Gerry's body away. They didn't tell me where. At a later stage, Michael said the body was south of the border but never said where and always maintained it was best that I didn't know.
At no time did I plan to kill my husband or conspire to have him killed. I had no reason to believe and did not expect that he would be subjected to any violence that night in my house or anywhere else. I had no advance knowledge of any intention on anyone's part to attack him or engage in a fight with him. I do not believe that anyone did intend to engage in any violence with him. I did not take part in or encourage or otherwise aid or abet any assault or act of violence on him and did not know what happened to him until after it had happened.

He emphasised on a daily basis that appearances and routines had to look normal. This included me having to make appearances at the furniture outlet and ask people had they seen Gerry. He continually impressed upon me how essential it was to stick tight with the story and that not one word was to change or else huge problems would follow.

From 20^th August to 30^th October I had lived with my father. However I had daily face to face contact with Michael. He called at my father's home in the evenings and continued to stay in PJ's flat. Michael made arrangements for me to get rented accommodation in Lifford, from 31^st October, to the first week of December. I did this because I could not cope with living in Enniskillen any longer and felt I was going to have a break down.

Michael frequently took phone calls on his mobile going outside to speak and being extremely secretive, never disclosing who he had been speaking to. However, he would make comments such as, "a few people like to keep an eye on what's going on with this situation". He was referring to Gerry's disappearance but implying that paramilitaries were monitoring the overall situation. As this made no sense to me I attempted to find out what he meant. He would reply "don't ask me any questions like that" leaving me completely confused and unnerved. He spoke on several occasions about a man he described as the boss of the Real IRA. He claimed he would have had a drink with him and implied some level of involvement with him. He made the point frequently that I would not wish for myself to be brought to this man's attention because this man thought nothing of shooting anyone who became a nuisance.

It was presented to me that I faced danger from several directions. The McGinley family would seek revenge against my family, particularly my brothers, and that the McGinleys would go after Michael or his family. I was aware that the McGinleys had strong family connections with the PIRA. Michael also suggested that he himself would use his connections in Bundoran to bum the McGinley's house down or shoot some of them. The terminology that he used was: "This will end up being a blood bath."

I was afraid of crossing Michael in case he would use these connections against me or my family and I was fully aware that he was acquainted with some very unsavoury characters. He told me about the criminal and paramilitary activities these people were involved in. He mentioned an incident about one of these people being shot in the head and dumped in a bog because that was what happened to people who ran with stories to the police.

In addition, Michael said on a daily basis that PJ and he were not going to be implicated at any level and that if I ever said anything that both he and PT would deny killing Gerry and that they only arrived at my home at Sunday lunchtime. This was particularly rein enforced when the police liaison officer made arrangements to meet me. I was constantly reminded that it would always be a case of two stories against one, ie that Michael and PJ would always side together. Michael constantly reiterated that I would be placing my family in serious danger, destroy my family's future and face long imprisonment if I said anything.

On the morning of our arrest on 21 May 2001 Michael said to me "just stick to the story, no matter what is put to you" when he seen the police cars arriving

Throughout our Remand period we had to travel to Enniskillen court every Monday. As always the message was to sit tight, that it was far too late to say anything different and that nothing could be proven.

On one occasion, a hoax device was planted close to my father's home and he was evacuated. Army bomb disposal was sent out and there was a controlled explosion. Michael referred to this saying "some people are just letting you know that they are still around" but refused to explain or elaborate any further. This only served to intimidate me more and fully believe that my fears had foundation.

Throughout the Remand period I had prison officers saying to me "what's the story with your co-accused he is always associating with Real IRA men." This was before segregation and served to confirm my fears that he was connected.

I know that I ought to have reported the matter to the police but in the immediate aftermath of the event I was panic stricken and overwhelmed. I felt compelled to go along with the plan pressed on me by Michael Monaghan. He made it clear that I had no choice in the matter and I simply didn't have the capacity to resist.

When I was arrested and interviewed by the police, I maintained the line suggested by Michael Monaghan because I was fearful of contradicting him and remained fearful of doing so throughout the trial. I was also fearful of the McGinleys. It was for these reasons that, at the trial, I did not testify on my own behalf or offer the account set out above. I did not tell my legal representatives what actually happened at any time before or during the trial. I did tell my legal representatives details about the abuse I suffered from Gerry McGinley. Their advice was not to give evidence of this as it would have provided evidence of a motive for the murder of Gerry McGinley.

I respectfully request the Court to receive this evidence because it is the truth of what happened. There is a reasonable explanation for not giving it at the trial and it is in the interests of justice that it should be tested under cross-examination and considered by the Court in determining whether my conviction is safe."