The Commission has referred the convictions of James Martin and Veronica Ryan to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.
James Martin and Veronica Ryan (formerly known as Veronica Martin) were convicted together in May 1991 at Belfast Crown Court of the false imprisonment of Joseph Fenton1. Mr Martin was also convicted on that date of making property available for terrorism. Mr Martin was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and Ms Ryan was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
The prosecution case against Mr Martin and Ms Ryan was that they falsely imprisoned Mr Fenton in Belfast between 25th and 26th February 1989. Mr Martin was also charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Joseph Fenton but was acquitted of that offence.
The Commission's review of these convictions followed the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal's decision in January 2009 to quash Mr Martin's and Ms Ryan's convictions relating to a separate incident has decided to refer the convictions to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court would quash them if a fresh appeal were to be heard.
Source : NDS - Central Office of Information
James Martin and Veronica Ryan (formerly known as Veronica Martin) were convicted together in May 1991 at Belfast Crown Court of the false imprisonment of Joseph Fenton1. Mr Martin was also convicted on that date of making property available for terrorism. Mr Martin was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and Ms Ryan was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
The prosecution case against Mr Martin and Ms Ryan was that they falsely imprisoned Mr Fenton in Belfast between 25th and 26th February 1989. Mr Martin was also charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Joseph Fenton but was acquitted of that offence.
The Commission's review of these convictions followed the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal's decision in January 2009 to quash Mr Martin's and Ms Ryan's convictions relating to a separate incident has decided to refer the convictions to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal because it considers there is a real possibility that the Court would quash them if a fresh appeal were to be heard.
Source : NDS - Central Office of Information
Comments