PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. H.G. SCHERMERS

      Unlike the majority of the Commission I do not find a violation

of Article 5.  In this respect I support the views explained by

Sir Basil Hall in paragraphs 1-7 of his partly dissenting opinion.

      I agree with the majority with respect to the other parts of the

report.

              PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR BASIL HALL

1.    I find myself in disagreement with the opinion of the majority

of the Commission in some respects.

2.    The national courts held that Corporal D., who arrested the first

applicant, had a genuine suspicion that she had committed the offence

of collecting money for the purchase of arms by the IRA, a proscribed

organisation.  This was on the basis of information, oral and written,

furnished at a briefing which took place at 06.30 on the day in

question.  Corporal D. was instructed to arrest the applicant and did

so at 07.00.

3.    While Corporal D. no doubt had genuine suspicion that the

applicant had committed the offence, the requirement of the Convention

is that there should be reasonable suspicion.  She was, it appears,

implementing orders and not herself deciding whether an arrest should

take place.  In the short period of the briefing one may well doubt

whether she would have the basis for holding a reasonable suspicion.

However the Convention does not, in my view, require that the arresting

officer should hold the reasonable suspicion.  It will suffice if he

or she acts on the instructions of someone who has - for example an

investigating judge, a magistrate, or in this case a superior officer.

The question for the Commission is, therefore, whether the military

authorities had a reasonable suspicion that the first applicant had

committed the offence in question.

4.    The ground for the suspicion was, the Government states, that

there existed specific and strong grounds founded on information

received from a reliable source that the first applicant had committed

the offence.  That clearly constituted a ground on which a reasonable

suspicion may be formed.  In the investigation of criminal offences

there is frequently a need to depend on the information furnished by

sources whose identity cannot be disclosed or as sources they will

become valueless.  In the investigation of terrorist linked offences

it is particularly important that the identity and  nature of sources

should not be revealed, because among other things, of the obvious risk

of reprisals and even death.  The reluctance of the Government, indeed

of the army, to identify the source does not, of itself, cast any doubt

on the validity of the information.  Nor is there any other material

which casts doubt.  Far from that; the involvement of the applicant's

brothers in the procurement of arms in the United States at least leads

to the conclusion that there was no inherent improbability in the

information furnished by the source.  Nor did the applicant's behaviour

after arrest, when she refused to answer questions, put the validity

of the information in doubt.

5.    Accordingly, notwithstanding the decision of the Court in the

Fox, Campbell and Hartley case, I think that on the facts of this case

there was reasonable suspicion of the first applicant having committed

an offence, and that there has been no violation of Article 5 para. 1

of the Convention, in particular Article 5 para 1 (c).

6.    Nor, in my view was there a violation of Article 5 para. 2 of the

Convention.  The first applicant was told on arrest that she was being

arrested under section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergeny Provision)

Act 1978.  That bare indication of the legal basis of the arrest does

not suffice for the purposes of Article 5 para. 2, which requires that

the person arrested must be informed of the reasons for his or her

arrest.  At the screening centre, about an hour and a half later, she

was asked questions relating to her brothers.  They had been convicted

a month earlier in the United States of America of being involved in

the purchase of arms for the IRA.  It must, from this questioning, have

been apparent to her that she was suspected of being similarly

involved, and that that was the reason for her being arrested.

7.    Since I have found no contravention of the provisions of

Article 5, there has, in my view, been no violation of

Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention.

8.    I agree that there was no violation of the applicants' rights

under Article 8 of the Convention.

9.    As regards Article 13 of the Convention, I agree that there was

an effective remedy before a national authority in respect of the entry

and search of the applicants' home.

10.   Since I have not found a violation of Article 5 para. 5, I must

also consider whether there was an effective remedy in respect of the

first applicant's complaints of violations of Article 5.  It is clear

that there was none, and in relation to this part of the case there was

a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

11.   As to the complaint of a lack of remedy for a violation of

Article 8 in the taking and retention of a photograph and personal

details, the law applying in Northern Ireland contains no protection

for an individual in the first applicant's situation.  That law

recognises no general right to privacy or to respect for private life.

Accordingly there is no effective remedy before a national authority,

and in consequence there is also a violation of Article 13 of the

Convention in this respect.