Lurgan man loses appeal over conviction of having magazines for assault rifle

Paul Martin McKerr denied knowing anything about the haul discovered in his work van, suggesting he had been unwittingly helping a co-accused collect breeze blocks in Lurgan.

But senior judges ruled that the 55-year-old provided no sensible explanation during a trial where he refused to testify.

Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan said: “Put simply, if this was a Good Samaritan situation in which an innocent errand backfired and led to criminal charges, the appellant could have given evidence as to his position and did not do so.”

In July last year McKerr, from Belvedere Manor in Lurgan, was convicted of possessing firearms in suspicious circumstances and without a firearms certificate.

Co-defendant Shane Stevenson, 35, of Drumlin Drive in the town, had already pleaded guilty to the same offences.

Both men were arrested when police stopped a Peugeot van on the Leven Road in Lurgan in February 2018.

McKerr owned and was driving the vehicle, while Stevenson was in the front passenger seat.

A plastic bag discovered in the passenger’s footwell contained 22 empty rifle magazines compatible with AK-47 assault rifles.

McKerr initially declined to answer police questions, but during a third interview stated that he knew nothing about the packages in his van.

In a circumstantial case, the judge sitting at his non-jury trial found him guilty based on the bag’s location and the failure to provide an explanation.

McKerr received a nine-month sentence and has now been released from prison.

However, defence lawyers argued that he was wrongly convicted of joint possession of the magazines.

The Court of Appeal heard that on the day of the seizure McKerr went to a building site to help his co-accused collect breeze blocks for a garden shed.

Barrister Desmond Hutton KC argued: “He was on the road seeking to do a favour for Stevenson… from the appellant’s point of view it was an innocent errand.”

He added: “Once Stevenson accepted guilt, that goes part of the way to resolving the mystery of who was in possession.”

But the court held the trial judge had been entitled to draw adverse inferences against Stevenson.

“The legal ingredients were met to establish the possession offence: the presence of the bag; the size and nature of the contents; and the position in the footwell presented a strong prima facie case that the appellant was aware and assented to them,” Dame Siobhan said.

Dismissing McKerr’s challenge, she added: “It is reasonable to expect an explanation. It is also entirely reasonable for the judge to say that no sensible explanation was provided.

“Therefore, in all of the circumstances, this appeal must fail.”