COURT SENTENCES GARY HAGGARTY
29 January 2018
Mr Justice Colton, sitting today in Belfast Crown Court, fixed a minimum term of
imprisonment of 35 years to be served by Gary Haggarty. He reduced this by 75%
for the assistance given to the prosecuting authorities and then a further 25% for his
plea of guilty. The resulting tariff is 6½ years’ imprisonment before he can be
considered for release by the Parole Commissioners.
Gary Haggarty (“the defendant”) was arrested by arrangement on 25 August 2009
and charged in connection with the murder of John Harbinson. He indicated his
willingness to assist the authorities within the framework provided by Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOPCA). This legislation provides that
defendants who have pleaded guilty to criminal charges and provided information
and assistance to the police receive discounting in their sentences. The defendant
entered into an arrangement pursuant to SOPCA on 13 January 2010 and was
interviewed over a period of two years by officers from the Police Service of
Northern Ireland (PSNI) and Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI).
The defendant admitted that he was a member of the UVF between 1991 and 2007,
rising to the rank of “Provost Marshal“. He was deeply involved in terrorist crime
involving intimidation, extortion, possession of arms and ammunition and the
infliction of serious violence including murder. He pleaded guilty to 200 offences
including five counts of murder1, one count of aiding and abetting murder, and five
counts of attempted murder. In September 2017 the defendant pleaded guilty to a
further two counts on a Voluntary Bill of Indictment making a total of 202 guilty
pleas. He asked for a further 301 offences to be taken into consideration.
Upon his guilty pleas the court imposed the mandatory sentence of life
imprisonment for the five offences of murder and the offence of aiding and abetting
murder. The court today sentenced the defendant in respect of all the counts to
which he has pleaded guilty and fixed the minimum term (or tariff) that he must
serve under the Life Sentence (NI) Order 2001 before he can be considered for release
by the Parole Commissioners. There is no remission available for any part of the
minimum term and it must be served in full.
1 The sentencing remarks detail the circumstances of the offences in respect of which life sentences
were imposed: The murder victims were John Harbinson (August 1997), Sean McParland (24
February 1994), Gary Convey and Eamon Fox (17 May 1994), Sean McDermott (30 August 1994). The
defendant also pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the murder of Peter McTasney on 24 February
1991. The remarks also detail the victims of the offences of attempted murder and conspiracy to
murder. Mr Justice Colton referred to the guidance to be applied by sentencers when fixing
the tariff. The leading case suggests the judge identifies a starting point and then
varies it upwards or downwards to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors
which relate to either the offence or the offender in a particular case.
Mr Justice Colton also referred to the victim impact statements he received from
individual victims and their families which showed the “devastating and
permanent” impact of the defendant’s criminality. Some of the statements referred
to concern about alleged involvement by police officers in the activities of the
defendant and, in particular, that some police officers failed to provide adequate
protection to victims and that his evidence was not being relied upon to prosecute
individual police officers. The judge said the decision whether or not to prosecute
other individuals based on the evidence of the defendant is a matter for the DPP and
not the court. The important factor for the court was that the defendant is willing to
give evidence if required to do so in any subsequent prosecution.
The Court’s Approach to Sentencing
Mr Justice Colton said he proposed to impose concurrent rather than consecutive
sentences given the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences and the totality
principle. He dealt with the most serious offences first, namely those involving life
tariffs with the sentences for the other crimes being concurrent to those. The judge
said he considered whether a whole life term should be imposed but decided this
was not appropriate as it would not permit the court to temper its sentence in
circumstances where the defendant has pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility
for his crimes. A whole life term would also defeat the objects of the SOPCA scheme
which has provided statutory recognition of the principle in the public interest in
discounting the sentences of those defendants who provide assistance to the
prosecuting authorities. The judge noted that he was not aware of any terrorist
offences in this jurisdiction in which a whole life tariff has been imposed.
In paragraphs [30] to [88] of his sentencing remarks, Mr Justice Colton set out the
aggravating and mitigating factors in each of the murders. He said that if the
offences had been committed in isolation he would have come to the view that the
appropriate starting tariff for the murders would be one of 25 years. He noted,
however, in coming to the appropriate sentence he must have regard to the totality
principle and look at the offending of the defendant as a whole:
“The offences which the defendant has admitted are ones of exceptional
gravity. The fact that he was involved directly in multiple terrorist
murders must be an aggravating factor in the determination of the overall
minimum term. In addition to the four separate incidents of murder and
the incident of aiding and abetting another murder the defendant has
admitted a multiplicity of other very serious offences. In effect he has been involved in a terrorist campaign over a 16 year period. That
campaign has resulted in deaths for which he was directly responsible.
The organisation he has supported and assisted has resulted in untold
damage to individual lives and to this society as a whole.”
Mr Justice Colton imposed an overall minimum life tariff term of 35 years’
imprisonment in respect of the five murders and the offence of aiding and abetting
murder.
Discount for assistance under SOPCA
Mr Justice Colton said it was important to understand the public interest principles
behind discounting sentences for those who agree to provide assistance to the
prosecuting authorities. Case law states that the stark reality is that those who
betray major criminals face torture and execution and the solitary incentive to
encourage co-operation is provided by a reduced sentence. The judge said this was
not a case where the defendant has had a “road to Damascus” conversion:
“He is not someone who wishes to atone for his crimes. His motivation is
undoubtedly one of self-interest and pragmatism. Notwithstanding this
there is a well-established public interest in discounting sentences in these
circumstances.”
The SOPCA does not include any guidance as to the appropriate level of discount to
provided but the general principles are well established in a series of decided cases
to which Mr Justice Colton referred in paragraphs [142] – [159] of his sentencing
remarks. Factors to be taken into account include the quality and quantity of the
material provided by the defendant and subsequent prosecution of crime. further discount for a plea of guilty which would result in either no sentence of
imprisonment or a derisory one.
Mr Justice Colton stated that as a result of the information provided by the
defendant, he has been charged with the offences in this case and the prosecution
has been provided with a significant amount of information in relation to very
serious criminal activity. The defendant is willing to give evidence in court in
relation to any of the matters he has disclosed in the course of his interviews and the
DPP has indicated that it intends to prosecute in one case which involves murder
and in which the defendant will be required to give evidence. The judge noted that
the nature and extent of the personal risk to and potential consequences faced by the
defendant are extremely serious. He has been held in solitary confinement in prison
and when released he will require a new identity and will remain under threat for
the rest of his life. Mr Justice Colton also referred to the material provided by the
defendant when operating as a CHIS which allowed the police to have prior
knowledge of approximately 44 potential incidents and mitigate the threat in respect
of at least 34 individuals. The defendant also provided material which enabled the
police to conduct searches which resulted in arrests and recovery of firearms and
explosive devices.
Mr Justice Colton concluded that the assistance provided by the defendant whist
operating as a CHIS and pursuant to the SOPCA agreement was substantial. He
said it went beyond what might be described as “normal” and as a result of that
assistance the defendant has placed himself at considerable personal risk which will
have a significant impact for the rest of his life. Taking all of these factors into
account the judge considered that the appropriate discount for all of the assistance
provided should be 75% (60% of the discount attributable to SOCPA assistance and
15% to assistance while acting as a CHIS).
Discount for Guilty Pleas
The defendant is entitled to a discount by reason of his pleas of guilty. The judge
said he admitted all of his offences in the course of interview and therefore made
admissions at the earliest opportunity. He said that many of the offences admitted
to were undetected and would not have resulted in convictions but for the
defendant’s confessions. Mr Justice Colton concluded that the appropriate discount
for the guilty pleas in the life tariffs in this case should be 25%. A schedule to the
judgment sets out the final sentences imposed in respect of each of the counts after
applying the discount for all assistance and for the guilty plea.
Mr Justice Colton referred to the headline figure in Count 17, the murder of Sean
McParland. He determined that the appropriate starting sentencing point including
aggravating and mitigating factors, but excluding discount for assistance and plea of
guilty, is a minim tariff of 35 years imprisonment:
Judicial Communications Office
5
“When this is reduced by 75% discount for all assistance pre and post SOPCA
and by a further 25% for his plea of guilty this results in a tariff of
6 ½ years’ imprisonment before the defendant is entitled to be considered
for release by the Parole Board. All the sentences imposed are concurrent.
[The defendant will be entitled to credit for the time he has spent on
remand.] The sentences on the counts in the Voluntary Bill will run from 8
September 2017.”
