PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 37555/97) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Irish national, Mr Gerard Patrick O’Hara (“the applicant”), on 20 May 1997.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by his counsel. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant alleged principally that he had not been arrested on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, that he had not been brought promptly before a judge or other judicial officer and that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation in respect of these matters. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 of the Convention.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 14 March 2000, the Chamber declared the application partly admissible [Note by the Registry. The Court’s decision is obtainable from the Registry].

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 12 June 2001 (Rule 59 § 2). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr H. Llewellyn, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent, Mr S. Freeland, Counsel, Mr O. Paulin, Mr S. Braviner, Mrs M. Madden, Advisers; (b) for the applicant Mr B. MacDonald, Counsel, Mr D. Mullan, of the Londonderry Bar, Solicitor. The Court heard addresses by Mr MacDonald and Mr Freeland.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was, and still is, a prominent member of Sinn Fein. He has been arrested by the police on a number of occasions and has issued proceedings relating to his allegations, inter alia, of arbitrary arrest, assault and ill-treatment arising out of six incidents. In proceedings lodged for incidents in 1988 and on 19 March 1993, he received an award of damages (amount unspecified). In or about January 1994 he was awarded damages of 2,500 pounds sterling (GBP) for an incident in Guildhall Square on 16 March 1993 when the judge found that he had been wrongfully arrested by police officers who had purported to arrest the applicant for obstruction in failing to give his name when in fact they were fully aware of his identity. This case concerns his arrest in 1985 in relation to the murder of Mr Kurt Konig.

Kurt Konig was a German citizen working for the caterers of canteens in police stations in Londonderry. He was murdered on 21 November 1985. The Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for his death.

The Government submitted that Special Branch received intelligence that the applicant and three other persons were involved in the murder. The intelligence derived from four informants who had proved reliable in the past and had provided information leading to seizures of explosives or firearms and to prosecutions. None of the informants had a criminal record. The information given by these four informants was consistent, in that all gave the same names as being involved, and independent, in that none was aware of the existence of the others and each gave the information at separate meetings with police officers.

Detective Superintendent R. of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“the RUC”) was briefed by Special Branch concerning this intelligence that the applicant was a member of the Provisional IRA and had been implicated in the murder.

Detective Superintendent R. briefed Inspector B. who in turn briefed Detective Constable S.

On 28 December 1985, at about 6 or 6.15 a.m., Detective Constable S. visited the applicant’s house and conducted a search. At the conclusion of the search, at 8.05 a.m., S. arrested the applicant. He told the applicant that he was arresting him under section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) which empowered a police constable to arrest, without a warrant, a person whom he had reasonable grounds for suspecting of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

The applicant was taken to Castlereagh Detention Centre where he was questioned about his possible membership of the IRA, his suspected involvement in Kurt Konig’s murder and also his possible involvement in the murder of two soldiers on 1 April 1982. He was interviewed on thirty-four occasions. He did not respond to any questions. According to the Government, the first interview occurred on 28 December 1985 at 11.50 a.m., at the start of which he was told that the police were enquiring into his involvement with the Provisional IRA and related matters. Police notes provided by the Government record that during the next interview, from 2.05 to 4 p.m., the interrogating officers told the applicant that they were making enquiries in relation to his membership of the IRA and the murder of Kurt Konig.

On 29 December 1985 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland extended the applicant’s period of detention beyond the initial 48-hour period, by five days. The applicant was released without charge on 3 January 1986 at 9 p.m., after six days and thirteen hours in custody.

By a writ issued on 20 August 1986 against the Chief Constable of the RUC, the applicant instituted a civil action for damages before the High Court in Northern Ireland in respect of, inter alia, assault, seizure of documents, false imprisonment and unlawful arrest.

Before the High Court, the submissions of the applicant’s counsel concentrated, as the trial judge found, on the issues of assault and confiscation of documents. He did however raise the argument, in the context of the lawfulness of the arrest, that Detective Constable S. did not have sufficient grounds for suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence to justify the arrest. The evidence before the court from Detective Constable S. was to the effect that he attended a briefing at 5.30 a.m. on 28 December 1985 in which he was told that he was to carry out a search to find evidence and arrest persons, including the applicant, suspected of involvement in the murder of Kurt Konig. He had been told by his superior officer, Inspector B., at that briefing that the applicant was involved in the murder and stated that these were the reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant. He did not state that Inspector B. had told him the grounds for his own suspicion, nor was he asked about that matter by counsel for either party. It was common ground that the murder was a terrorist offence. The superior officer was not called as a witness in the proceedings.

On 14 November 1990 Judge McCollum found that there had been an unlawful taking of the applicant’s notes by a police officer and awarded Mr O’Hara GBP 100 in damages. He rejected the applicant’s claims of assault and ill-treatment, finding that he had not satisfied him on the balance of probabilities that his version of events was right and that of the police officers wrong. As regards the allegations of wrongful arrest, the judge noted: “... while [the applicant’s counsel] submitted that the officer who arrested the [applicant] was required, in order to render the arrest lawful, in addition to holding the suspicion grounding the arrest of the [applicant], [to] have reasonable grounds for that suspicion, based on his own knowledge of facts giving rise to that suspicion. He accepted that both Mr Justice Carswell and the Lord Chief Justice had previously rejected the same submission in similar cases. While he reserved his position on this issue he made no new submissions and produced no new arguments to me which would cause me to depart from the reasoning in their decisions, and in the circumstances I am satisfied in this case on the evidence of Detective Constable [S.] that as a result of the information he had been given he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the [applicant] had been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. Cross-examination of the detective constable did not probe the details which had been disclosed to Detective Constable [S.] in the course of the briefing during which he was supplied with this information. I find on the evidence that the detective constable had a suspicion that the [applicant] was involved in the murder of Kurt Konig and that this suspicion was reasonably based on information given to him by a superior officers at the briefing that morning. Either party could have elicited details of the briefing, not as truth of the matters disclosed, but as relevant on the issue of the reasonableness of the suspicion held by the arresting officer. Proof of the lawfulness of the arrest lies on the defendant. I would not wish to lay down the proposition that reasonable suspicion could in all circumstances be based on the opinion of another officer expressed without any supporting allegations of fact. But it does seem to me that a briefing officially given by a superior officer would give reasonable grounds for suspicion of the matters stated therein. The fact that I have such scanty evidence of the matters disclosed to Detective Constable [S.] means that I am only just satisfied of the legality of the arrest, but I am fortified in my view by the lack of detailed challenge in cross-examination as to the nature of the information given to him. The main issue between the parties is as to whether the [applicant] was assaulted and mistreated during the period of his detention ...”

On 24 October 1990, the applicant gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland concerning the claim of unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.

On 6 May 1994 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the High Court that reasonable suspicion could be derived from information provided by a superior officer and that the arrest was lawful. “Notwithstanding his concern that more detail of the briefing had not been given, the learned trial judge was able to conclude: ‘(1) that the arresting officer ... did have a suspicion that the [applicant] was involved in a terrorist murder and it was implicit that that suspicion was genuinely held by him; and (2) that the official briefing which he had attended given by [his superior officer] gave him reasonable grounds for that suspicion.’ These were factual findings and clearly contained in our view all the essential proofs that the respondent was required to adduce to constitute lawful arrest under section 12(1)(b) of the Act. [Applicant’s counsel] submitted that this was not the case. The source of the suspicion and the reasonable grounds for it must be before the court, namely evidence from the briefing officer, Inspector [B.], as to the grounds on which he suspected the [applicant] of being involved in the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism. It would be unjust, he contended, if section 12 could give Inspector [B.] protection from liability for false imprisonment if the Inspector himself had not reasonable grounds for the suspicion. The first part of this submission flies in the face of the authorities as we have said. The second part, so far as this case is concerned, seems to be hypothetical in that the regularity or the bona fides of the ‘official briefing’ were not questioned. No factual foundation for such a case was made out ... We consider that the decision of the learned trial judge was correct. The information given at the briefing to the arresting officer was admissible and although, in his words, ‘scanty’ it was sufficient to constitute the required state of mind of an arresting officer under section 12(1)(b) of the Act.”

An appeal to the House of Lords against the decision of the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 12 December 1996. In his judgment, with which the other judges agreed, Lord Hope of Craighead held that it was not necessary for an arresting officer to possess all the information which had led to the decision to arrest, but that the arresting officer must have equipped himself with sufficient information so that he had reasonable cause to suspect before exercising the power of arrest. The information acted upon by the arresting officer need not be based on his own observations, as he is entitled to form a suspicion based on what he has been told; his reasonable suspicion may be based on information which has been given to him anonymously, or it may be based on information which turns out later to be wrong. While the evidence about the matters disclosed at the briefing was indeed scanty, he found that the trial judge was entitled to weigh up the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances and, having regard to the source of that information, and to draw inferences as to what a reasonable man, in the position of the independent observer, would make of it.

Lord Steyn stated, inter alia, concerning the general principles: “Certain general propositions about the powers of constables under a section such as section 12(1) can now be summarised. (1) In order to have a reasonable suspicion the constable need not have evidence amounting to a prima facie case. Ex hypothesis one is considering a preliminary stage of the investigation and information from an informer or a tip-off from a member of the public may be enough: Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam [1970] A.C. 942, 949. (2) Hearsay information may therefore afford a constable reasonable grounds to arrest. Such information may come from other officers ... (3) The information which causes the constable to be suspicious of the individual must be in existence to the knowledge of the police officer at the time he makes the arrest. (4) The executive ‘discretion’ to arrest or not ... vests in the constable, who is engaged on the decision to arrest or not, and not in his superior officers. Given the independent responsibility and accountability of a constable under a provision such as section 12(1) of the Act of 1984 it seems to follow that the mere fact that an arresting officer has been instructed by a superior officer to effect the arrest is not capable of amounting to reasonable grounds for the necessary suspicion within the meaning of section 12(1). It is accepted, and rightly accepted, that a mere request to arrest without any further information by an equal ranking officer, or a junior officer, is incapable of amounting to reasonable grounds for the necessary suspicion. How can the badge of superior officers and the fact that he gave an order make a difference? ... In practice it follows that a constable must be given some basis for a request to arrest someone under a provision such as section 12(1), e.g. a report from an informer.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e1
001-59721_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
37555/97
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e2
001-59721_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e3
001-59721_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Irish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e4
001-59721_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Gerard Patrick O’Hara
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e5
001-59721_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
20 May 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e6
001-59721_a8_em6
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e7
001-59721_a8_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-59721_a8_e8
001-59721_a8_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e9
001-59721_a8_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e10
001-59721_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H. Llewellyn
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e11
001-59721_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e12
001-59721_a8_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Freeland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e13
001-59721_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Mr O. Paulin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e14
001-59721_a8_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Braviner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e15
001-59721_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs M. Madden
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e16
001-59721_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. MacDonald
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e17
001-59721_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Mullan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e18
001-59721_a8_em18
ORG
QUASI
Londonderry Bar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e19
001-59721_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr MacDonald
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e20
001-59721_a8_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Freeland
POLITICS
correct
001-59721_a8_e21
001-59721_a8_em21
DEM
QUASI
Sinn Fein
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e22
001-59721_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e23
001-59721_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
19 March 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e24
001-59721_a8_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e25
001-59721_a8_em25
QUANTITY
QUASI
2,500 pounds sterling (GBP)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e26
001-59721_a8_em26
LOC
QUASI
Guildhall Square
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e27
001-59721_a8_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
16 March 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e28
001-59721_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e29
001-59721_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Kurt Konig
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e30
001-59721_a8_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Kurt Konig
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e31
001-59721_a8_em31
DEM
QUASI
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e32
001-59721_a8_em32
LOC
QUASI
Londonderry
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e33
001-59721_a8_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
21 November 1985
POLITICS
check
001-59721_a8_e34
001-59721_a8_em34
ORG
QUASI
Provisional IRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e35
001-59721_a8_em35
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e36
001-59721_a8_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
Royal Ulster Constabulary (“the RUC”)
POLITICS
check
001-59721_a8_e34
001-59721_a8_em37
ORG
QUASI
Provisional IRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e35
001-59721_a8_em38
PERSON
QUASI
R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e37
001-59721_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e38
001-59721_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e39
001-59721_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
28 December 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e40
001-59721_a8_em42
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 or 6.15 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e38
001-59721_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e41
001-59721_a8_em44
DATETIME
NO_MASK
8.05 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e38
001-59721_a8_em45
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e42
001-59721_a8_em46
LOC
QUASI
Castlereagh Detention Centre
POLITICS
insert
001-59721_a8_e43
001-59721_a8_em47
ORG
QUASI
IRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e44
001-59721_a8_em48
PERSON
QUASI
Kurt Konig’s
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e45
001-59721_a8_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
1 April 1982
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e39
001-59721_a8_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
28 December 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e46
001-59721_a8_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
11.50 a.m.
POLITICS
check
001-59721_a8_e34
001-59721_a8_em52
ORG
QUASI
Provisional IRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e47
001-59721_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
2.05 to 4 p.m.
POLITICS
check
001-59721_a8_e43
001-59721_a8_em54
ORG
QUASI
IRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e30
001-59721_a8_em55
PERSON
QUASI
Kurt Konig
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e48
001-59721_a8_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
29 December 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e49
001-59721_a8_em57
DATETIME
NO_MASK
48-hour
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e50
001-59721_a8_em58
DATETIME
NO_MASK
five days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e51
001-59721_a8_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
3 January 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e52
001-59721_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
9 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e53
001-59721_a8_em61
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e54
001-59721_a8_em62
DATETIME
NO_MASK
thirteen hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e55
001-59721_a8_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
20 August 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e56
001-59721_a8_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e56
001-59721_a8_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e38
001-59721_a8_em66
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e38
001-59721_a8_em67
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e57
001-59721_a8_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
5.30 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e39
001-59721_a8_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
28 December 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e30
001-59721_a8_em70
PERSON
QUASI
Kurt Konig
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e37
001-59721_a8_em71
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e37
001-59721_a8_em72
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e58
001-59721_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
14 November 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e59
001-59721_a8_em74
PERSON
QUASI
Judge McCollum
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e60
001-59721_a8_em75
PERSON
QUASI
Mr O’Hara
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e61
001-59721_a8_em76
QUANTITY
QUASI
GBP 100
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e62
001-59721_a8_em77
PERSON
QUASI
Justice Carswell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e38
001-59721_a8_em78
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e38
001-59721_a8_em79
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e30
001-59721_a8_em80
PERSON
QUASI
Kurt Konig
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e38
001-59721_a8_em81
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e63
001-59721_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
24 October 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e64
001-59721_a8_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
6 May 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e56
001-59721_a8_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e37
001-59721_a8_em85
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e37
001-59721_a8_em86
PERSON
QUASI
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e65
001-59721_a8_em87
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e66
001-59721_a8_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
12 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e67
001-59721_a8_em89
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Hope of Craighead
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e68
001-59721_a8_em90
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Steyn
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-59721_a8_e69
001-59721_a8_em91
MISC
NO_MASK
Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-59721_a8_e70
001-59721_a8_em92
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1970
Gerard Patrick O’Hara
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Gerard Patrick O’Hara