Three teenage boys facing charges over Ballymena riots back in court

The two 15-year-olds and the 17-year-old were first remanded into custody last Thursday and today (wed), they appeared at Ballymena Youth Court by video link from custody.

In the cases of the two 15-year-old boys, both of whom are charged with riot with one facing a further accusation of damaging a wheelie bin and the other with having fireworks, the court heard their lawyers will be applying for bail to the High Court tomorrow (thurs).

They were each remanded back into custody to appear again on 16 July.

The 17-year-old boy, facing a single count of riot on 10 June this year, applied for bail and the court heard how there was “serious public disorder involving hundreds of individuals causing damage to public and private property including local business and people’s homes.”

According to the police case, he was wearing a “full face balaclava” and was part of a crowd of youths, all of whom were wearing dark clothing, involved in “throwing debris, bricks, stones and road signs” at police.

The court heard how this defendant was arrested by officers in the Tactical Support Group after they performed what was described as a “rapid advance” manoeuvre.

When he was searched officers retrieved a balaclava but during interviews, the 17-year-old refused to give an account or answer any police questions.

Giving evidence Det. Const. Henry said police were objecting to bail due to the risk of further offences and that a remand to custody is vital “to send a strong message to deter persons from getting involved in serious disorder.”

Under cross examination from defence solicitor Andrew Kinney, the officer agreed it as not possible to say whether this defendant actually threw anything or was actively involved in the riot.

She further agreed “there was a significant number of youths in the area,” all of them wearing dark clothing and having their faces at least partially, if not fully covered.

Mr Kinney highlighted that during police interviews, no statement was read to the defendant and no footage was shown to him, asking the officer whether it was a PSNI “policy decision” to depart from the usual method of interview.

DC Henry told him however, “I’m not aware of that policy decision.”

“So the court has before it a person who is arrested because he was wearing the clothing of the rioters, as described by the officer, but he isn’t doing anything which would be showing that he was actively involved in the riot itself,” Mr Kinney suggested to the detective.

She agreed in so far as “yes, I believe we are just waiting the footage being trawled through before we can identify the defendant.”

“What was he doing out at that time of night, when there were hundreds of other people out rioting, wearing a balaclava and then when asked about it he fails to give an account?” District Judge Nigel Broderick asked.

Mr Kinney told it was “because he did not want to be on social media.”

Having reflected on the submissions and police evidence, Judge Broderick said while there has been no disorder in recent days, “that is only a recent development” and trouble could reignite.

Emphasising that a significant number of police officers were injured, along with significant damage being caused, the judge ruled that “the court must send out a clear message that people who get involved in rioting, or are in the vicinity of that…there is a real risk that you will spend time in custody.”

Refusing to grant bail, the judge remanded the 17-year-old back into custody until 16 July.