Ammo haul conviction quashed by appeal court

A WEST Belfast man was wrongly found guilty of having a haul of ammunition and bomb-making components without any proof he ever came into contact with them, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Senior judges said there was no forensic evidence linking Kevin Mclaughlin to the contents of a bag discovered in the attic of a house.

They confirmed that convictions for which the 39-yearold had been jailed are to be quashed.

In March 2019 he received a five-and-a-half year sentence for alleged offences linked to an investigation into dissident republican terrorism.

A large bag had been located during searches of a house in the Twinbrook area in November 2015.

Inside it were smaller bags containing three mercury tilt switches, nearly 700 assorted cartridges, detonators and a magazine for an AK47.

Mr Mclaughlin had no links to the house that was searched, but the prosecution said his prints were present on some of the bags containing the items.

Swabs were also taken from handles and a knot, with a mixed DNA profile obtained.

Mr Mclaughlin was a contributor to that profile, according to the prosecution case.

He was found guilty of possessing the items in suspicious circumstances following a trial at Belfast Crown Court.

But his lawyers appealed the convictions on the basis the DNA evidence was insufficient.

The Court of Appeal backed their case, quashed Mr Mclaughlin’s convictions and directed his release last year.

Lord Justice Treacy said: “It is notable that there is no proof whatsoever here of any connection between this appellant and the explosives, ammunition or any other contents of the bags.”

At best, the judge held, the case presented by the prosecution only put him in contact with the bags in which the cache was found.

“There is no forensic evidence at all linking him to the content of these bags,” he said.

“Ubiquitous bags... are precisely the kind of items that do get used and reused by many people over the course of many different transactions. Fragile threads do not make a strong rope.”

A jury would have been entitled to infer Mr Mclaughlin had at some time come into contact with the bags, the judge accepted.

But he ruled: “The evidence was insufficient... to draw the inference beyond reasonable doubt the appellant had knowledge and control of the items.”