Kerr v. the United Kingdom (partial dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 13

December 1999

Kerr v. the United Kingdom (partial dec.) - 40451/98

Decision 7.12.1999 [Section III]

Article 5

Article 5-2

Information on reasons for arrest

Alleged lack of information on reasons for arrest: inadmissible

Information on charge

Alleged lack of information on charge: inadmissible

Prompt information

Alleged lack of promptness of information on reasons for arrest and on charge: inadmissible

On 7 November 1996 the applicant was arrested under section 14 § 1 (b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The police seized computer equipment from his home. The applicant was subjected to thirty-nine interviews by the police.  He was cautioned under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 and was asked, inter alia, about his whereabouts at the time of a recent bomb explosion, his membership of the provisional IRA and the information stored in his computer, which included electoral lists. The applicant remained silent throughout the interviews. On 14 November 1996 he was charged with possession of “any record or document likely to be useful to terrorists” and conspiring to “collect or record any information which is of such a nature as to be useful to terrorists in planning or carrying out an act of violence”.  Although the charges did not specify the “record or document” or the “information”, the police alleged that it was clear from the interviews and the written caution. The applicant was brought before a court on 14 November 1996 and was remanded in custody.  He was later questioned about information retrieved from computer discs seized at his home which related to police and army matters and the belief that this information was meant to be used for training terrorist units. He sought judicial review of the prosecution’s decision not to provide him with further details of the evidence against him. The authorities maintained that the disclosure of more details would have been prejudicial to their inquiries. The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland finally held that the prosecution was under no duty to provide any further details at that stage of the investigations. The applicant was eventually released from custody, the charges against him having been withdrawn.

Inadmissible under Article 5 § 2: At the time of his arrest the applicant was notified of the provision under which he was being arrested. However, a bare indication of the legal basis of an arrest, taken on its own, cannot be considered sufficient. In this case, the applicant went through thirty-nine interviews during the week that followed his arrest, and was questioned about his involvement in a recent bomb attack, his membership of the provisional IRA and the items seized by the police from his house.  It could be inferred from the intense frequency of the interviews that he was apprised of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges he would be facing within a few hours of his arrest, and thus in accordance with the notion of promptness required by this provision. The charges read out to him on 14 November 1996 pertained to his possession of information with intent to use it for terrorist purposes and were consistent with the line of questioning pursued by the police and with the nature of the materials seized at his house. The fact that these charges were notified to him only a week after his arrest does not in itself raise an issue of promptness. The requirement of promptness comes into play if there is a charge against the applicant. Facts raising a suspicion capable of grounding an arrest need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify bringing a charge against the accused, which comes at the next stage of the criminal investigation. The applicant remained silent and the police were unable to make any headway in pursuing their suspicions against him. As a result, it was only at the end of the period of detention that they could decide whether to charge him: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy