PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 34720/97) against the Republic of 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 two Irish nationals, Mr Anthony Heaney and Mr William McGuinness (“the applicants”), on 17 January 1997.

The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr D. Robinson, a lawyer practising in Dublin. The Irish Government (“the Government”) were represented successively by their Agents, Ms E. Kilcullen, Mr R. Siev and Mr A. Connolly, all of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The applicants alleged that section 52 of the Offences against the State Act 1939 constituted a violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.

On 1 July 1998 the Commission decided to communicate to the Government the applicants' complaints under Articles 6 and 10 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).

5. The application was allocated to the Fourth 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. Mr J. Hedigan, the judge elected in respect of Ireland, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Ms N. Vajić, the judge elected in respect of Croatia, to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 6. By a decision of 21 September 1999, the Court declared the application admissible [Note by the Registry. The Court's decision is obtainable from the Registry.]. 7. The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Court decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 2 in fine) and the parties replied in writing to each other's observations on the merits.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

At approximately 4.10 a.m. on 23 October 1990 a large explosion occurred at a British Army/Royal Ulster Constabulary checkpoint in County Derry. Five British soldiers and one civilian were killed and a number of other British army personnel were seriously injured.

Approximately an hour and a half later, Irish police officers on surveillance duty noted a light in a house approximately four miles from the scene of the explosion. At approximately 6.05 a.m. on 24 October 1990 a warrant was obtained to search the house. At or around 7 a.m. that morning the police entered the house and found an assortment of gloves (rubber and knitted), balaclavas, caps and other clothing. The seven men in the house, including the owner and the applicants, were arrested and detained by the police under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act 1939 (“the 1939 Act”). As later noted by the High Court (see paragraph 15 below), it was suspected that the bombing had been carried out by the Irish Republican Army (an unlawful paramilitary organisation known as the IRA) and the applicants were, in turn, suspected by the police of membership of that organisation and of involvement in the bombing.

Both applicants were cautioned by police officers in the usual terms, namely that they were not required to say anything unless they wished to do so and they were also informed that anything they did say would be taken down in writing and might be given in evidence against them. Mr Heaney was then questioned about the bombing and about his presence in the house where he was arrested. He refused to answer the questions put to him. Police officers then read section 52 of the 1939 Act to him and he was requested pursuant to that section to give a full account of his movements and actions between 6 p.m. on 23 October and 6.55 a.m. on 24 October 1990. He refused to answer any questions. Mr McGuinness was also questioned about the explosion and about his presence in the house where he was arrested. He refused to answer those questions. He was then requested to account for his movements between 1 a.m. and 7.15 a.m. on 24 October 1990. He refused to answer. Police officers then read section 52 of the 1939 Act to him and he was handed a copy of the section and asked to read it. He continued not to answer questions put to him.

On 25 October 1990 both applicants were brought to the Special Criminal Court in Dublin and charged with the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation (contrary to section 21 of the 1939 Act) and of failing to account for their movements (contrary to section 52 of the 1939 Act).

On 19 April 1991 the applicants' trial in the Special Criminal Court took place. On 26 June 1991 the applicants were acquitted of the charge of membership of an unlawful organisation but each was convicted of failing to provide an account of their movements during a specified period contrary to section 52 of the 1939 Act. The court rejected their arguments that section 52 must be read as including a right to refuse to provide such information on reasonable grounds and about the confusion caused by police officers giving the usual caution about the right to remain silent and then making a request for information under section 52 of the 1939 Act. Both applicants were sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Their sentences commenced on 26 June 1991. They were released on 10 November 1991.

The applicants then appealed against their conviction and sentence under section 52 to the Court of Criminal Appeal. As regards their conviction, they submitted that the Special Criminal Court had erred in finding that the applicants were not confused as a result of the caution about their right to remain silent and the conflicting request for information under section 52 by the same officers. They argued that section 52 should have been read as including the possibility of a refusal to give information based on reasonable excuse. As to their sentence, they argued that the confusion caused by the caution and request for information should have been a mitigating factor; that there was no evidence that they warranted the maximum sentence; and that the court failed to take into account the time the applicants had spent in custody prior to their trial.

On 3 May 1992 the applicants took proceedings in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of section 52 of the 1939 Act. The proceedings pending before the Court of Criminal Appeal were consequently adjourned.

By a judgment dated 24 June 1994, the High Court rejected their application. It based the applicants' right not to answer questions as regards their movements on Article 38 of the Constitution rather than on Article 40, noting that their case related to suspects in custody and not to accused persons on trial. However, it was considered that section 52 constituted a proportionate interference with the applicants' right to silence, the objective being to assist police investigations into serious crimes of a subversive nature involving the security of the State. In addition, the restrictions were not considered arbitrary or irrational. The High Court also considered that the restriction did not excessively impair the right to silence given the objective pursued by section 52 and the other legal protections applicable to persons in custody under section 30 of the 1939 Act, which protections were afforded to minimise the risk of an accused wrongfully confessing to a crime and to safeguard against the possible abuse of the powers provided by section 52 of the 1939 Act. Those protections were listed by the High Court: the requirement that a police officer must have a bona fide suspicion prior to arrest; the obligation to inform the suspect of the offences under the 1939 Act and/or of the scheduled offences of which he is suspected; the right to legal assistance when reasonably requested; the right to medical assistance; the right of access to a court; the right to remain silent and to be told of that right; the obligations to provide appropriate cautions to detainees and to abstain from cross-examining a person in detention under section 30 of the 1939 Act and from unfair and oppressive questioning of such detainees; and the conditions attaching to any extension of the length of detention under section 30 of the 1939 Act.

By a judgment dated 23 July 1996 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' appeal, finding that section 52 of the 1939 Act was not inconsistent with the Constitution. It was noted that section 52 of the 1939 Act was silent on the use which could be made of statements provided pursuant to requests made under section 52. While the Court of Criminal Appeal had suggested in a previous case (The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. McGowan [1979] Irish Reports 45) that information lawfully obtained under section 52 might be later used in evidence, the Supreme Court expressly reserved its position as to whether that view was correct or not. The Supreme Court considered that the right to silence was a corollary to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 40 of the Constitution and that the relevant assessment was to consider the proportionality of the restriction on the right to silence in view of the public order exception to Article 40 of the Constitution. It noted that the 1939 Act was aimed at actions and conduct calculated to undermine public order and the authority of the State and that the proclamation made pursuant to section 35 of the 1939 Act remained in force. As to whether section 52 restricted the right to silence more than was necessary in light of the disorder against which the State was attempting to protect the public, the court noted that an innocent person had nothing to fear from giving an account of his or her movements even though such a person may wish, nevertheless, to take a stand on grounds of principle and to assert his or her constitutional rights. However, it considered that the entitlement of citizens to take such a stand must yield to the right of the State to protect itself. The entitlement of those with something relevant to disclose concerning the commission of a crime to remain silent must be regarded as of an even lesser order. The Supreme Court concluded that the restriction in section 52 was proportionate to the State's entitlement to protect itself.

The applicants' appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in relation to their conviction under section 52 of the 1939 Act has been adjourned generally pending the outcome of the present application.