EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application Nos. 12690/87, 12731/87, 12823/87, 12900/87, 13032/87,

13033/87, 13246/87, 13231/87, 13232/87, 13233/87, 13310/87, 13553/88

and 13555/88

James CLINTON, Sean SIMPSON, Sean MAGUIRE, Patrick McGEOWN, John

MURRAY, Philip CAMPBELL, Kieran SMYTH, Guy BRESLIN, John CONNOLLY, Sean

McGUINNESS, L., M. and N.

against

the UNITED KINGDOM

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 14 October 1991)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                      Page

I.    INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17)                       1-4

      A.  The applications (paras. 2-5)                1-2

      B.  The proceedings (paras. 6-12)                2-3

      C.  The present Report (paras. 13-17)            3-4

II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 18-33)        5-12

      A.  The particular circumstances of the cases    5-11

          (paras. 18-30)

      B.  The relevant domestic law and practice       11-12

          (paras. 31-33)

III.  OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 34-54)         13-17

      A.  Complaints declared admissible (para. 34)    13

      B.  Points at issue (para. 35)                   13

      C.  As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the          13-15

          Convention (paras. 36-42)

          Conclusion (para. 42)                        15

      D.  As regards Article 5 para. 2 of the          15-16

          (paras. 43-47)

          Conclusion (para. 47)                        16

      E.  As regards Article 5 para. 5 of the          17

          Convention (paras. 48-51)

          Conclusion (para. 51)                        17

      F.  Recapitulation (paras. 52-54)                17

Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall,                  18

joined by Mr. Schermers

APPENDIX I       History of the proceedings            19-20

APPENDIX II      Decision on the admissibility         21-38

                 of the applications

I.    INTRODUCTION

1.    The following is an outline of the cases, as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A.    The applications

      The first seven applicants

2.    The first applicant, James Clinton, is an Irish citizen, born in

1960 and resident in Belfast.  The second applicant, Sean Simpson, is

an Irish citizen, born in 1959 and resident in Belfast.  The third

applicant, Sean Maguire, is an Irish citizen, born in 1957 and resident

in Belfast.  The fourth applicant, Patrick McGeown, is an Irish

citizen, born in 1956 and resident in Belfast.  The fifth applicant,

John Murray, is an Irish citizen, born in 1950 and resident in Belfast.

The sixth applicant, Philip Campbell, is an Irish citizen, born in 1957

and resident in Belfast.  The seventh applicant, Kieran Smyth, is an

Irish citizen, born in 1960 and resident in Belfast.  The seven

applicants are represented before the Commission by Messrs. Madden and

Finucane, Solicitors, Belfast.

      The other six applicants

3.    The eighth applicant, Guy Breslin, is a British citizen, born in

1968 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.  The ninth applicant,

John Connolly, is an Irish citizen, born in 1968 and resident in

Strabane, County Tyrone.  The tenth applicant, Sean McGuinness, is a

British citizen, born in 1966 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.

The eleventh applicant is a British citizen, born in 1969 and resident

in Strabane, County Tyrone.  The twelfth applicant is an Irish citizen,

born in 1964 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.  The thirteenth

applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1962 and resident in Strabane,

County Tyrone.  These six applicants are represented before the

Commission by Messrs. John Fahy & Co., Solicitors, Strabane, County

Tyrone.

4.    The applications are directed against the United Kingdom.  The

respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. M.C. Wood,

succeeded by Mrs. A.F. Glover, both of the Foreign and Commonwealth

Office.

5.    The cases concern the applicants' complaint that they were

arrested under prevention of terrorism legislation in breach of

Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention, their arrests having been

allegedly for interrogation purposes only, rather than for the purpose

of bringing them before a competent legal authority on reasonable

suspicion of having committed criminal offences, as envisaged by

Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention.  The first seven applicants

also complained that they had no enforceable right to compensation

under Northern Ireland law for their arrest claim, contrary to

Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention.  The seventh applicant,

Kieran Smyth, further complained that he had not been informed promptly

of the reasons for his arrest, contrary to Article 5 para. 2 of the

Convention.  (The first six applicants had made a similar complaint

under Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention but the Commission (Second

Chamber) had declared it inadmissible.)

B.    The proceedings

6.    The first application was introduced on 27 January 1987 and

registered on 2 February 1987.  The second application was introduced

on 6 February 1987 and registered on 17 February 1987.  The third

application was introduced on 13 March 1987 and registered on

24 March 1987.  The fourth application was introduced on 1 May 1987 and

registered on 5 May 1987.  The fifth application was introduced on

1 June 1987 and registered on 9 June 1987.  The sixth application was

introduced on 2 June 1987 and registered on 12 June 1987.  The seventh

application was introduced on 18 September 1987 and registered on

28 September 1987.  The eighth, ninth and tenth applications were

introduced on 14 May 1987 and registered on 28 September 1987.  The

eleventh application was introduced on 10 August 1987 and registered

on 19 October 1987.  The twelfth application was introduced on

1 October 1987 and registered on 26 January 1988.  The thirteenth

application was introduced on 25 June 1987 and registered on

26 January 1988.

7.    After a preliminary examination of the cases by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the first, second and

fourth applications on 7 October 1987.  The Commission decided,

pursuant to Rule 42 of its Rules of Procedure (former version), to give

notice of the applications to the respondent Government, but without

inviting the parties to submit written observations at that stage

pending the outcome of the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the

United Kingdom, at that time pending before the Commission and,

subsequently, the Court.  In the meantime the examination of the three

applications was adjourned.  The Commission took a similar decision in

the other 10 cases on 6 May 1989.

8.    The Court gave its judgment in the above-mentioned case on

30 August 1990 (Eur.  Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment

of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182).  On 7 September 1990 the

Commission decided to invite the parties to submit written observations

on the cases in the light of that judgment within similar time limits.

9.    Messrs. John Fahy & Co., on behalf of the last six applicants,

submitted their observations on 7 November 1990.  The Government

submitted their observations on 4 January 1991 after an extension of

the time limit.  Messrs.  Madden & Finucane, on behalf of the first

seven applicants, submitted their observations on 12 February 1991,

after the expiry of the time limit, followed by an extension.

10.   On 10 April 1991 the Commission decided to refer the applications

to the Second Chamber which on 31 May 1991 declared the first seven

applications partially admissible and the remaining applications

admissible.

11.   On 10 June 1991 the parties were sent the text of the

Commission's decision on admissibility and they were invited to submit

any further observations on the merits of the cases that they wished,

including further information about the factual circumstances of the

twelfth applicant's arrest.  The Government submitted further

information about the latter's case on 22 July 1991.  No further

observations were submitted by the applicants.  On 14 October 1991 the

Commission joined the cases.

12.   After declaring the cases admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement.  In the light of the parties' reactions the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement

can be effected.

C.    The present Report

13.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second

Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention and after

deliberations and votes, the following members being present:

           MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A. WEITZEL

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Sir   Basil HALL

           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           Mr.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

14.   The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on

14 October 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers

of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

15.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the

Convention, is

      1)  to establish the facts, and

      2)  to state an opinion as to whether the facts found

          disclose a breach by the State concerned of its

          obligations under the Convention.

16.   A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the

Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's

decision on the admissibility of the applications as APPENDIX II.

17.   The pleadings of the parties, together with the documents lodged

as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.

II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A.    The particular circumstances of the cases

(1)   Application No. 12690/87 : James Clinton

18.   At 06.00 hours on 21 October 1986 the first applicant was

arrested under section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency

Provisions) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) and was taken to Castlereagh Police

Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being

arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being

involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was arrested

as a result of information received by the Royal Ulster Constabulary

(the RUC) from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was

involved in a terrorist incident, an attempted murder in Ormeau Road

on 3 October 1986.  Interviewing began five hours later at 11.00 hours

on the day of his arrest and at that interview the first applicant was

informed that he was being questioned in connection with the

aforementioned attempted murder and possession of firearms. During his

interviews the first applicant was questioned in connection with the

circumstances of the Ormeau Road incident and it was put to him that

on the night in question he was in possession of the firearm which

caused the terrorist incident.  The first applicant declined to answer

any questions put to him during his interviews and refused to speak at

all.  At 16.20 hours on 22 October 1986 he was released without charge,

within 35 hours of his arrest.

(2)   Application No. 12731/87 : Sean Simpson

19.   The second applicant was arrested at 05.45 hours on

13 January 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested as a result of information received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he was a member of the

Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA).  Interviewing began five and

a quarter hours later at 11.00 hours on the day of his arrest and he

was told that he was being questioned in connection with his suspected

membership of PIRA.  During subsequent interviews the second applicant

was questioned about his membership of PIRA and, in particular, the

group within PIRA which, through violence and the threat of violence,

enforces discipline within that organisation.  He was further

questioned about his involvement in the movement of weapons and in

terrorist activities in the Belfast area.  The second applicant

declined to answer any questions or to speak at all.  At 17.30 hours

on 14 January 1987 he was released without charge, within 36 hours of

his arrest.

(3)   Application No. 12823/87 : Sean Maguire

20.   The third applicant was arrested at 06.35 hours on

11 November 1986 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he was a member of the

Ardoyne PIRA and involved in certain specific terrorist crimes in the

North Belfast area.  Interviewing began four hours later at 10.40 hours

during which he was told he was being questioned in connection with the

aforementioned matters.  He was subsequently questioned about certain

specific serious terrorist crimes in the North Belfast area. The third

applicant declined to answer any questions during his interviews or to

speak at all.  At 14.00 hours on 13 November 1986 he was released

without charge, within 56 hours of his arrest.  (At the time of his

arrest, the third applicant had previous convictions for conspiracy to

murder and possession of firearms and ammunition.)

(4)   Application No. 12900/87 : Patrick McGeown

21.   At 04.40 hours on 1 April 1987 the fourth applicant was arrested

under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police

Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being

arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being

involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was arrested

because of information received by the RUC from a usually reliable

source which indicated that he was a member of PIRA and had had

possession of weapons and explosives in the Greater Belfast area.

Interviewing began nearly six hours later at 10.35 hours on the morning

of his arrest when he was informed that he was being questioned

regarding his membership of PIRA and the possession of both weapons and

explosives in the Greater Belfast area since he rejoined PIRA after his

release from prison early in 1986.  The fourth applicant stated that

he refused to answer any questions unless his solicitor was present and

thereafter declined to answer any questions. At his first and

subsequent interviews he was questioned at length regarding his

membership of and activities within PIRA and about his knowledge of

PIRA arms and explosives dumps.  He was asked how long he was out of

prison before he rejoined active service with PIRA, what position he

held when he rejoined and who processed his application to rejoin.  He

was asked what position he presently held within PIRA and what he had

done for PIRA since he rejoined.  He was also asked what future

operations of PIRA he had knowledge of and about the identities of

present active PIRA members and their positions and ranks.  At his

third interview he was asked whether he had been involved in any way

in a recent bombing in the Divis flats complex in which a soldier had

been killed.  He was released from custody at 14.15 hours on

2 April 1987, within 34 hours of his arrest.  (At the time of his

arrest, the fourth applicant had previous convictions for possessing

explosives with intent to endanger life or property, causing an

explosion likely to endanger life or property and belonging to a

proscribed organisation for which he was sentenced to a term of 15

years' imprisonment.)

(5)   Application No. 13032/87 : John Murray

22.   The fifth applicant was arrested at 04.50 hours on

1 April 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he had been involved in

a recent gun and rocket attack at New Barnsley RUC station at 12.15

hours on 31 March 1987.  Interviewing began nearly six hours later at

10.45 hours on the morning of his arrest when he was informed that he

was being questioned in connection with his alleged membership of PIRA

and possession of weapons on behalf of that organisation.  At that

interview he was also questioned about the aforementioned gun and

rocket attack at New Barnsley RUC Station.  In subsequent interviews

he was further questioned about his association with known members of

PIRA and was asked if he had ever been involved in PIRA operations in

West Belfast.  He was also questioned about a bomb attack at the Divis

flats on 30 March 1987 in which a soldier was murdered.  During the

course of his interviews, the fifth applicant refused to answer any

questions which were put to him either in respect of the matters for

which he had been arrested or anything else.  He was released from

custody at 12.45 hours on 3 April 1987 without being charged, within

56 hours of his arrest.

(6)   Application No. 13033/87 : Philip Campbell

23.   The sixth applicant was arrested at 19.35 hours on

12 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he was a member of a PIRA

bombing team. Interviewing began an hour and a half later at 21.00

hours when he was told that he was being questioned in connection with

terrorist incidents in the Belfast area as a member of a PIRA bombing

team.  He declined to answer any questions during his interviews.  He

was released without charge at 20.05 hours on 13 May 1987, within 25

hours of his arrest.  (On 10 December 1980 the sixth applicant was

convicted of being in possession of firearms and ammunition with

intent, of possession of firearms under suspicious circumstances and

of undertaking instruction in the use of firearms for which he was

sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment in respect of each offence to run

concurrently.)

(7)   Application No. 13246/87 : Kieran Smyth

24.   The seventh applicant was arrested at 19.50 hours on

14 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the

hijacking of a van on 6 April 1987 at Laganbank Road.  Interviewing did

not begin until the next day, at 10.40 hours on 15 May 1987.  The

reason for the delay in interviewing the seventh applicant was that a

routine medical examination of the applicant could not take place until

21.20 hours on 14 May and thereafter it was not possible to assemble

a team of officers to interview the seventh applicant until the

following morning.  At his first interview the applicant was told that

he was being questioned in connection with the aforementioned hijacking

of a van.  In subsequent interviews he was questioned about his

involvement in the movement of firearms in the Short Strand area and

his suspected membership of PIRA.  Throughout his interviews he

declined to answer any questions or to speak at all.  He was released

without charge at 21.00 hours on 15 May 1987, within 26 hours of his

arrest.  (At the time of his arrest, the seventh applicant had previous

convictions for riotous behaviour, intimidation, public nuisance,

making use of prohibited articles, malicious damage and belonging to

a proscribed organisation.)

(8)   Application No. 13231/87 : Guy Breslin

25.   The eighth applicant was arrested at 12.25 hours on

15 April 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the

hijacking and arson of an Ulster bus on 24 March 1987 at 16.30 hours

at the junction of Townsend Street / Fountain Street, Strabane.

Interviewing began three and a quarter hours later at 15.40 hours on

the day of his arrest when he was told that he was being questioned

because of his suspected involvement in the aforementioned hijacking

and arson of an Ulster bus.  He was asked what he was doing on that

date and whether he was acquainted with certain individuals.  He was

asked if he was a member of PIRA and whether he had attended the

funeral of a certain Gerald Logue at Londonderry on that date.  In

subsequent interviews he was further questioned along the same lines.

In none of his interviews did he answer any of the questions which were

put to him or speak at all.  He was released without charge at 18.50

hours on 16 April 1987, within 31 hours of his arrest.

(9)   Application No. 13232/87 : John Connolly

26.   The ninth applicant was arrested at 07.05 hours on

15 April 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act.  He declined

to name any person who should be informed of his arrest.  According to

the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the

RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he had been

involved in the same hijacking and arson incident as in the eighth

applicant's case.  Interviewing began over three and a half hours later

at 10.45 hours on the morning of his arrest and he was told that the

reason he was being questioned was that he was suspected of being

involved in the hijacking of the Ulster bus.  He was asked if he had

attended the funeral of Gerald Logue in Londonderry on that date and

whether this was the reason for his becoming involved in the incident

in question.  In subsequent interviews he was told that he was

suspected with two others of having masked and armed himself, boarded

the bus and ordered the driver off before driving the bus across the

road, breaking windows, pouring petrol inside it and setting fire to

it.  He was also questioned about his involvement with PIRA in Strabane

and his association with other persons from that organisation.

Throughout the interviews the ninth applicant remained silent, refusing

to answer any questions which were put to him or speak at all.  He was

released without charge on 16 April 1987 at 19.45 hours, within 37

hours of his arrest.

(10)  Application No. 13233/87 : Sean McGuinness

27.   The tenth applicant was arrested at 08.35 hours on

11 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the

throwing of petrol bombs at the police in a series of petrol bombing

incidents in the Strabane area that year, and that he was a member of

PIRA. Interviewing began over five and a half hours later at 14.15

hours on the day of his arrest.  He was told at that interview that the

reason he was being questioned was his suspected involvement in the

petrol bombing incidents and his involvement with PIRA.  After denying

his involvement in any petrol bombing or riots, he declined to answer

any further questions in that interview.  In subsequent interviews he

was asked if he was a member of PIRA and whether he had ever thrown

petrol bombs at the police.  During his third interview the applicant

was asked whether he had been part of a crowd of youths who had thrown

petrol bombs at the police in Townsend Street on 23 February 1987. The

tenth applicant denied any involvement.  He was further asked whether

he had been involved in throwing petrol bombs at the police in Fountain

Street on 6 February 1987.  He denied any involvement, although he said

he had seen them being thrown in Fountain Street. During a subsequent

interview he was asked if he had ever been asked to join PIRA, but he

denied that he had.  In further interviews he agreed that he had seen

petrol bombs at close quarters and described them accurately.  He

admitted having thrown stones at police vehicles when he was at school.

He also said that he had read leaflets distributed by Sinn Fein which

advised those arrested for terrorist offences not to speak to the

police during interviews at Castlereagh Police Office.  He was

questioned about his involvement in a riot on 23 February 1987 and a

hijacking that night in Strabane when a makeshift barricade was set on

fire by a number of youths.  He was questioned in detail about many

specific cases of fire bombing in respect of which he was given the

date and time of the incidents about which he was being questioned.

He denied any involvement.  He was released without charge at 11.20

hours on 13 May 1987, within 51 hours of his arrest.

(11)  Application No. 13310/87

28.   The eleventh applicant was arrested at 07.40 hours on

28 April 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the

same hijacking incident as in the eighth applicant's case.

Interviewing began over three and a quarter hours later at 11.00 hours

on the morning of his arrest when he was told that he was being

questioned because he was suspected of being involved in the

aforementioned bus hijacking, the day of Gerald Logue's funeral, and

of arson at Townsend Street, Strabane.  At subsequent interviews the

applicant was asked about his membership of the Irish National

Liberation Army (INLA), a proscribed organisation.  He was also

questioned in further detail about the bus incident.  Apart from

denying, in the fifth interview, that he was involved in the incident

in question in any way, the eleventh applicant declined to answer any

questions.  He was released without charge at 15.10 hours on

30 April 1987, within 56 hours of his arrest.

(12)  Application No. 13553/88

29.   The twelfth applicant was arrested at 07.20 hours on

7 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

source which indicated his involvement in causing an explosion at a

primary school in Barrack Street which occurred at 12.25 hours on

6 March 1987.  The RUC had also received information from another and

usually reliable source indicating that he was a member of PIRA.

Interviewing began over three and a quarter hours later at 10.40 hours

on the morning of his arrest at which he was informed that he was being

questioned because he was suspected of being a member of PIRA in

Strabane.  In addition, he was questioned about his movements on and

around 5 and 6 March 1987 and about his involvement in causing the

explosion at the primary school.  In subsequent interviews he was

questioned about possession of a rifle with a certain J.B. in Strabane

at the end of February 1987, as well as his membership of PIRA.  The

twelfth applicant was asked whether he knew J.B. or had ever spoken to

him.  He was also questioned about whether he supported the aims and

objectives of PIRA.  Throughout his interviews, he declined to answer

any questions.  He was released without charge on 8 May 1987 at 19.00

hours, within 36 hours of his arrest.

(13)  Application No. 13555/88

30.   The thirteenth applicant was arrested at 08.40 hours on

11 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to

Castlereagh Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that

he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government,

he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a

usually reliable source which indicated that he had been in a series

of petrol bomb attacks in the Strabane area in the previous 12 months,

and was involved with PIRA.  Interviewing began over five and a half

hours later at 14.15 hours on the day of his arrest.  At that interview

he was informed that he was being questioned because he was suspected

of being involved in the series of petrol bombings.  In subsequent

interviews he was further questioned about specific petrol bombing

incidents in Strabane during February and March 1987.  He was asked why

the police would receive information to the effect that he had been

involved in these petrol bombings if it were not true.  He denied any

involvement.  He was released without being charged at 11.20 hours on

13 May 1987, within 51 hours of his arrest.

B.    The relevant domestic law and practice

31.   Section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act

1978 conferred, inter alia, a power of arrest which is now repealed.

The relevant parts of section 11 provided as follows:

      "1.  Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he

      suspects of being a terrorist ...

      3.   A person arrested under this section shall not be

      detained in right of the arrest for more than 72 hours

      after his arrest, and Article 131 of the Magistrates'

      Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and section 50(3)

      of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland)

      1968 (requirement to bring arrested person before a

      magistrates' court not later than 48 hours after his

      arrest) shall not apply to any such person."

32.   The legislative history and domestic law relating to section 11

is summarised by the Court in paragraphs 18 to 22 of its Fox, Campbell

and Hartley judgment of 30 August 1990.  As the Court observed in

paragraph 22 of its judgment, section 11(1) was replaced by section 6

of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, which came

into effect on 15 June 1987, subsequent to the facts of all the present

applications.  This new provision is confined to conferring a power of

entry and search of premises for the purpose of arresting persons under

section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act

1989.  This latter provision expressly limits powers of arrest without

a warrant to cases in which there are "reasonable grounds" for

suspicion.

33.   In addition, an arrest without warrant is subject to the common

law rules laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Christie v.

Leachinsky ((1947) Appeal cases 573).  The person being arrested must

in ordinary circumstances be informed of the true ground of his arrest

at the time he is taken into custody or, if special circumstances exist

which excuse this, as soon thereafter as it is reasonably practicable

to inform him.  This does not require technical or precise language to

be used provided the person being arrested knows in substance why.

However, for domestic law purposes, a person was validly arrested under

section 11 (1) of the 1978 Act if he was simply informed that he was

being arrested as a suspected terrorist (in re McElduff (1972) Northern

Ireland Report 1 and McKee v.  Chief Constable for Northern Ireland

(1985) 1 All E.R. 1-4).

III.  OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A.    Complaints declared admissible

34.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaint

that their arrest and detention under section 11 of the Northern

Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 were in breach of Article 5

para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.  It has also declared admissible

the complaint of the seventh applicant that he was not informed

promptly of the reasons for his arrest, contrary to Article 5 para. 2

(Art. 5-2) of the Convention, and the first seven applicants' complaint

that they had no enforceable right to compensation under Northern

Ireland law for their Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) claim, contrary to

Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.

B.    Points at issue

35.   The following are accordingly the points at issue in the present

applications:

-     whether the applicants' arrest and detention were in violation

of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention;

-     whether the seventh applicant was informed promptly of the

reasons for his arrest as required by Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of

the Convention;

-     whether the first seven applicants had an enforceable right to

compensation, as required by Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the

Convention.

C.    As regards Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention

36.   The relevant part of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the

Convention provides as follows:

      "1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of

      person.  No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in

      the following cases and in accordance with a procedure

      prescribed by law:

      ...

      (c)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person

      effected for the purpose of bringing him before the

      competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of

      having committed an offence ..."

37.   The applicants did not dispute that their arrests and detention

were "lawful" under Northern Ireland law and, thereby, in accordance

with a procedure prescribed by law, within the meaning of Article 5

para. 1 (Art. 5-1) second sentence.  They did, however, complain that

their arrests and detention under section 11 of the Northern Ireland

(Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) were otherwise in breach

of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention, insofar as, in

particular, they did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 para.

1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c).

38.   The applicants' first contention was that they were not arrested

for the purpose of bringing them before a competent legal authority,

but merely for the purpose of interrogating them.  Their second

contention concerned the absence of any standard of reasonable

suspicion in the legislation which authorised their detention. Section

11 of the 1978 Act did not require the arresting officer to hold a

reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed any criminal

offences.  The absence of the requirement of reasonableness was, in

their submission, given the Court's judgment in the Fox, Campbell and

Hartley case, in breach of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the

Convention (Eur.  Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of

30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 16-18 paras. 34-36).  The

Government contended, inter alia, that, although the legislation did

not require reasonable suspicion on arrest, in each of the present

cases the arresting officers had held reasonable suspicions that the

applicants had committed terrorist offences, even if the Government

were unable to disclose the sources of information upon which part of

those suspicions were based without jeopardising such sources.

39.   The Commission refers to the Court's judgment in the similar Fox,

Campbell and Hartley case in which it noted that the test for lawful

arrest under section 11 (1) of the 1978 Act was a subjective one of

honest suspicion on the part of the arresting officer, whereas

Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention requires an

objective test of reasonable suspicion.  This presupposes the existence

of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that

the person concerned may have committed an offence. What may be

regarded as reasonable will however depend on the circumstances of a

particular case.  Whilst terrorist crime presents special problems and

the police may arrest someone on the basis of reliable sources which

must remain confidential for their protection and future efficacy,

nevertheless the exigencies of dealing with terrorist crime cannot

justify stretching the notion of "reasonableness" to the point where

the essence of the Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) safeguard is

impaired.  Although the Contracting State cannot be asked to reveal its

confidential sources of information, the Commission and the Court

cannot be satisfied that the requirements of Article 5 para. 1

(Art. 5-1) have been fulfilled unless the Contracting State has

furnished at least some specific facts or information capable of

showing the Convention organs that there was reasonable suspicion

against the person concerned.

40.   Two of the applicants in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case,

Mr.  Fox and Ms.  Campbell, were arrested on suspicion of being

involved with intelligence gathering and courier work for the

Provisional IRA. They had previous convictions for terrorist offences.

Mr.  Hartley was suspected of involvement in a kidnapping incident.

The respondent Government had asserted that, although they could not

disclose the information or identify the source of the information that

led to the applicants' arrest, there had existed strong grounds for

suggesting that in Mr.  Fox' and Ms.  Campbell's cases, at the time of

their arrest, they were engaged in terrorist information and courier

activities and that, in Mr.  Hartley's case, there was available to the

police material connecting him with a terrorist kidnapping

(ibid p. 17 para. 33).  The Court accepted that the police held an

honest suspicion concerning these applicants' involvement in terrorist

offences.  It also noted the previous convictions of Mr. Fox and

Ms. Campbell and that, in confirmation of the police's honest

suspicion, the applicants had been questioned on specific terrorist

matters.  However, in the absence of further material, the Court

concluded that the Government's explanations did not meet the objective

standard of reasonable suspicion laid down in Article 5 para. 1 (c)

(Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.  In view of this finding it did not

consider it necessary to go into the question of the purpose of the

arrest of those applicants (Eur.  Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley

judgment of 30 August 1990, pp. 15-18 paras. 28-36, partially quoted

in the Decision on admissibility in the present cases at Appendix II

pp. 20-37 below).

41.   As regards the facts of the present cases, the Commission finds

that no significant distinctions can be drawn between them and the

circumstances of the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case.  In the present

cases the Government, without providing any details or corroborating

elements, stated that the police suspected the applicants of

involvement in terrorist offences because of information received from

usually reliable sources, which had to remain confidential for security

purposes.  This explanation is not materially distinguishable from that

provided in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case (see preceding

para. 40).  Moreover the Commission emphasises that the legislation

itself, section 11 of the 1978 Act, did not require the arresting

officer to hold a reasonable suspicion, and that it has since been

amended to include the reasonableness standard.  In these

circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that the elements

provided by the Government are insufficient to support the conclusion

that there was "reasonable suspicion" against the present applicants

in accordance with the minimum standard set by Article 5 para. 1 (c)

(Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.  In the light of this opinion the

Commission does not consider it necessary to go into the applicants'

other complaint under Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the

Convention concerning the purpose of their arrests.

      Conclusion

42.   The Commission concludes, by 7 votes to 2, that there has been

a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention in the

present cases.

D.    As regards Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention

43.   Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention provides as

follows:

      "Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a

      language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest

      and of any charge against him."

44.   The seventh applicant, Kieran Smyth, complained that he was not

informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest, as required by

Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.  The Government relied

on the findings of the Court in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case:

Whilst the applicant was told on arrest that he was being arrested

under section 11 of the 1978 Act, thereafter, during his interview with

the police, it must have become clear to him why he had been arrested

and the reasons why he was suspected of being a terrorist.

Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention does not necessarily

require this information to be related in its entirety by the arresting

officer at the very moment of the arrest.  The fact that a few hours

elapsed before he was interviewed could not be regarded as falling

outside the constraints of time imposed by the notion of promptness in

Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) (ibid pp. 19-20 paras. 40-43).

45.   The Commission notes that the Court held in its Fox, Campbell and

Hartley judgment that a mere reference to section 11 of the 1978 Act

on arrest was insufficient information for the purposes of Article 5

para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention, but that during interrogation

there was no reason to suppose that these applicants were unable to

deduce from the questions put to them why they had been arrested.  On

the same basis, the Commission finds that there is no ground to suppose

that the seventh applicant in the present cases was unable to

understand from his interviews why he had been arrested.  However,

unlike the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case, the interviewing of the

seventh applicant did not commence within a few hours of arrest.  His

interviewing began the day after his arrest.  In the former case

interviewing had begun at the latest 4 hours and 35 minutes after

arrest, whereas the seventh applicant was kept over night without any

substantial explanation other than the initial reference to the 1978

Act, and interviewing began 14 hours 50 minutes after his arrest.

46.   The Government explained that the delay was caused by the

practical problems of obtaining a medical examination of the applicant

and then assembling an interview team so late on the same evening of

the applicant's arrest (para. 24 above).  However, the Commission

considers that the fundamental importance of the right to liberty, and

the ancillary right to adequate information about the reasons for a

deprivation of liberty, must be respected notwithstanding any practical

problems which may exist.  The notion of promptness under Article 5

para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention, in the Commission's view, must

involve a time constraint of no more than a few hours if it is not be

deprived of its natural meaning, unless exceptional circumstances arise

in a particular case, such as some serious incapacity on the part of

the arrested person to comprehend the reasons that might have been

given (cf.  No. 6998/75, X v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 16.7.80,

paras. 109-113, Eur. Court H.R., Series B no. 41, pp. 34-35).

Accordingly the Commission is of the opinion that the seventh applicant

was not informed promptly enough of the reasons for his arrest.

      Conclusion

47.   The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has

been a violation of Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention in

the case of Kieran Smyth, the seventh applicant.

E.    As regards Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention

48.   Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention provides as

follows:

      "Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention

      in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall

      have an enforceable right to compensation."

49.   The first seven applicants also complained that they had no

enforceable right to compensation under domestic law for the breach of

Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.  The Government

contended that as, in their view, there had been no breach of

Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention in the present cases,

no issue arose under Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5).

50.   The Commission has concluded above (para. 42) that the

applicants' arrest and detention were in breach of Article 5 para. 1

(Art. 5-1) of the Convention.  This violation could not give rise to

an enforceable right to compensation before the Northern Ireland

Courts. The Commission recalls that a violation of Article 5 para. 5

(Art. 5-5) was found by the Court in the similar case of Fox, Campbell

and Hartley (ibid p. 21 para. 46).  There are no elements in the

present first seven applications to distinguish their cases from this

finding by the Court.

      Conclusion

51.   The Commission concludes, by 7 votes to 2, that there has been

a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention in the

cases of the first seven applicants.

F.    Recapitulation

52.   The Commission concludes, by 7 votes to 2, that there has been

a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention in the

present cases (para. 42).

53.   The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has

been a violation of Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention in

the case of Kieran Smyth, the seventh applicant (para. 47).

54.   The Commission concludes, by 7 votes to 2, that there has been

a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention in the

cases of the first seven applicants (para. 51).

Secretary to the Second Chamber   President of the Second Chamber

        (K. ROGGE)                    (S. TRECHSEL)

Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall joined by Mr.  Schermers

      I find myself unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority

of the Commission that there has been a violation of

Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention in these cases.

      In the Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment the Court commented

(para. 34) that "Contracting States cannot be asked to establish the

reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest of a suspected

terrorist by disclosing the confidential sources of supporting

information or even facts which would be susceptible of indicating such

sources or their identity".  The Court went on to say, "Nevertheless

the Court must be enabled to ascertain whether the essence of the

safeguard afforded by Article 5 para. 1 (c) has been secured".

      The question in that case, as in the present cases, was whether

some facts or information have been furnished capable of satisfying the

Convention organs that the applicants had been reasonably suspected of

committing the alleged offence.

      In the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case the Government argued that,

although they could not disclose the sensitive material on which

suspicion was based, two elements supported their contention that there

was reasonable suspicion.  The first was that the applicants in that

case had previous convictions for serious acts of terrorism.  The

second was that they were questioned about specific terrorists acts.

The Court, by a majority, found that these two elements on their own

were insufficient to support the conclusion that there was "reasonable

suspicion".

      The situation in the present cases is different from that in the

Fox, Campbell and Hartley case, in which, although reference was made

to sources, reliance was not placed on them, but on the two elements

mentioned above.  The Government merely commented that although the

source of information could not be disclosed there was strong ground

for suggesting that the applicants in that case had committed offences.

In the present cases the Government positively asserts that information

that each of the applicants had committed an offence was furnished by

a "usually reliable source".  Such information must give rise to a

reasonable suspicion that the offence in question has been committed

unless other information in the possession of the arresting officer

casts doubt on its validity.

      It must be accepted that there was information in the possession

of the authorities giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that in each

of these cases the applicant had committed an offence. Accordingly

there was no violation of Article 5 para. 1 (c).

Appendix I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

     Date                     Item

________________________________________________________________

Introduction of applications

27.01.87              First application No. 12690/87

06.02.87              Second application No. 12731/87

13.03.87              Third application No. 12823/87

01.05.87              Fourth application No. 12900/87

01.06.87              Fifth application No. 13032/87

02.06.87              Sixth application No. 13033/87

18.09.87              Seventh application No. 13246/87

14.05.87              Eighth, ninth and tenth applications

                      Nos. 13231/87, 13232/87 and 13233/87

10.08.87              Eleventh application No. 13310/87

01.10.87              Twelfth application No. 13553/87

25.06.87              Thirteenth application No. 13555/87

Registration of applications

02.02.87              First application No. 12690/87

17.02.87              Second application No. 12731/87

24.03.87              Third application No. 12823/87

05.05.87              Fourth application No. 12900/87

09.06.87              Fifth application No. 13032/87

12.06.87              Sixth application No. 13033/87

28.09.87              Seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth

                      applications Nos. 13246/87, 13231/87,

                      13232/87 and 13233/87

19.10.87              Eleventh application No. 13310/87

26.01.88              Twelfth and thirteenth applications

                      Nos. 13553/87 and 13555/87

Examination of admissibility

07.10.87              Commission's decision to give notice

                      of first, second and fourth

                      applications to respondent

                      Government and to adjourn

06.05.89              Commission's decision to give notice

                      of other applications to

                      respondent Government and to adjourn

07.09.90              Commission's decision to invite the

                      parties to submit written observations

                      simultaneously

07.11.90              Observations of last six applicants

04.01.91              Government's observations

12.02.91              Observations of first seven applicants

10.04.91              Reference of applications to Second

                      Chamber

31.05.91              Commission's decision to declare

                      first seven applications partially

                      admissible and other applications

                      admissible

Examination of the merits

10.06.91              Parties invited to submit further

                      observations on the merits and

                      information about the twelfth

                      application

22.07.91              Information from the Government

                      about the twelfth application

10.09.91              Commission's consideration of

                      state of proceedings

14.10.91              Commission's deliberations on

                      merits and on text of its Article 31

                      Report.  Joinder of applications.

                      Final votes taken.  Adoption of Report