Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/14310.88-en-19941028/view/
Timestamp: 2019-12-10 20:00:56
Document Index: 341020016

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 32', 'art. 47', 'art. 25', 'art. 48', 'art. 43', 'in fine', 'art. 43', 'art. 50', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'application no. 14310', 'art. 8', 'art. 31', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 3', 'art. 5', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 8', 'art. 8', 'art. 8', 'in fine', 'art. 8', 'art. 8', 'art. 5', 'art. 8', 'art. 8', 'art. 13', 'art. 5', 'art. 8', 'art. 13', 'art. 13', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 8', 'art. 13', 'art. 13', 'art. 8', 'art. 13', 'art. 13']

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 7 April 1993, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 14310/88) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) on 28 September 1988 by Mrs Margaret Murray, Mr Thomas Murray, Mr Mark Murray, Ms Alana Murray, Ms Michaela Murray and Ms Rossina Murray, who are all Irish citizens.
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent them (Rule 30). The Government of Ireland, having been reminded by the Registrar of their right to intervene (Article 48 (b) of the Convention and Rule 33 para. 3 (b)) (art. 48-b), did not indicate any intention of so doing.
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 23 April 1993, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr R. Bernhardt, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr N. Valticos, Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha, Mr L. Wildhaber and Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the United Kingdom Government ("the Government"), the applicants’ lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the orders made in consequence, the Government’s memorial was lodged at the registry on 3 November 1993, the applicants’ memorial on 15 November and their claims for just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention on 23 December 1993, 18 and 20 January 1994. In a letter received on 14 December 1993 the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate did not wish to comment in writing on the memorials filed.
5. In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24 January 1994. The Chamber had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
6. Following deliberations held on 28 January 1994 the Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of a Grand Chamber (Rule 51 para. 1).
7. The Grand Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr Ryssdal, President of the Court, Mr Bernhardt, Vice-President of the Court, and the other members of the Chamber which had relinquished jurisdiction (Rule 51 para. 2 (a) and (b)). On 28 January 1994, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the ten additional judges called on to complete the Grand Chamber, namely Mr R. Macdonald, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr S.K. Martens, Mr I. Foighel, Mr R. Pekkanen, Mr A.N. Loizou, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr P. Jambrek and Mr K. Jungwiert (Rule 51 para. 2 (c)). Mr Pettiti, a member of the original Chamber, was unable to take part in the Grand Chamber’s consideration of the case and was replaced by Mr F. Gölcüklü in accordance with the drawing of lots effected under Rule 51 para. 2 (c). Mr Valticos, also a member of the original Chamber, was prevented at a later stage from continuing to take part in the Grand Chamber’s deliberations.
8. The Grand Chamber held a meeting devoted to procedural matters on 24 March 1994.
9. The six applicants are members of the same family. The first applicant, Mrs Margaret Murray, and the second applicant, Mr Thomas Murray, are husband and wife. The other four applicants are their children, namely their son Mark Murray (born in 1964), their twin daughters Alana and Michaela Murray (born in 1967) and a younger daughter Rossina Murray (born in 1970). At the relevant time in 1982 all six applicants resided together in the same house in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
10. On 22 June 1982 two of the first applicant’s brothers were convicted in the United States of America ("USA") of arms offences connected with the purchase of weapons for the Provisional Irish Republican Army ("Provisional IRA"). The Provisional IRA is included among the organisations proscribed under the special legislation enacted in the United Kingdom to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland (see paragraph 35 below).
11. On 26 July 1982 at approximately 6.30 a.m. Corporal D., a member of the Women’s Royal Army Corps, attended an Army briefing at which she was told that the first applicant was suspected of involvement in the collection of money for the purchase of arms for the IRA in the USA, this being a criminal offence under section 21 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") and section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The corporal was instructed to go to the first applicant’s house, arrest her under section 14 of the 1978 Act (see paragraphs 36-38 below) and bring her back to the Army screening centre at Springfield Road in Belfast.
12. At 7 a.m. Corporal D., who was unarmed but accompanied by five armed soldiers, arrived by Army vehicle at the applicants’ home. The first applicant herself answered the door and three of the male soldiers, together with Corporal D., entered the house. Corporal D. established the identity of the first applicant and asked her to get dressed. Corporal D. went upstairs with the first applicant. The other applicants were roused and asked to assemble in the living room. The soldiers did not carry out any search of the contents of the house, but made written notes as to the interior of the house and recorded personal details concerning the applicants. At about 7.30 a.m. in the hallway of the house Corporal D., with one of the soldiers acting as a witness, said to the first applicant, "As a member of Her Majesty’s forces, I arrest you." On being asked twice by the first applicant under what section, Corporal D. replied, "Section 14."
13. The first applicant was then driven to the Army screening centre at Springfield Road, Belfast. She was escorted into a building and asked to sit for a short time in a small cubicle. At 8.05 a.m. she was taken before Sergeant B. who asked her questions with a view to completing part 1 of a standard form to record, inter alia, details of the arrest and screening procedure and personal details. The first applicant refused to answer any questions save to give her name and she refused to be photographed. The interview ended four minutes later. She was then examined by a medical orderly who endeavoured to establish whether she suffered from certain illnesses, but she again refused to co-operate and did not answer any of his questions.
14. At 8.20 a.m. she was taken to an interview room and questioned by a soldier in civilian clothes in the presence of Corporal D. She was asked, inter alia, about her brothers and her contacts with them, but she still refused to answer questions. After the interview, which ended at 9.35 a.m., she was returned to the reception area and then taken back to the medical orderly who asked her if she had any complaints. She did not reply to this query.
15. The standard record form, called the "screening proforma", recorded the first applicant’s name, address, nationality, marital and tenancy status, the chronological details about her arrest, the names of the Army personnel involved, the names of the other applicants and their relationship to her, her physique and her attitude to the interview. Under the heading "Additional information ... concerning the arrestee (as reported by the arresting soldier)", it stated: "Subject is the sister of C... M... who was arrested in USA. Questioned on the above subject." Nothing however was recorded under the heading "Suspected offence". It noted that the applicant had refused to answer questions and that no information had been gained from the interview.
16. Some eighteen months later, on 9 February 1984, the first applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Defence for false imprisonment and other torts.
17. In those proceedings one of the principal allegations made by the first applicant was that her arrest and detention had been effected unlawfully and for an improper purpose. Her allegations were summarised in the judgment of Murray J. given on 25 October 1985:
18. In support of this case the first applicant’s counsel not only called and examined the applicant herself but extensively cross-examined the two witnesses called on behalf of the defendants, namely Corporal D. and Sergeant B.
19. The evidence given by the first applicant is recorded in a note drafted by the trial judge, there being no transcript of the first day of the trial as a result of a technical mishap with the recording equipment. The first applicant explained how she had found the conditions of her arrest and detention distressing for her. She had been angry but had not used strong language. She testified that whilst at the Army centre she had refused to be photographed, to be weighed by the medical orderly, to sign any documents and to answer questions, whether put by Sergeant B., the medical orderly or the interviewer, apart from giving her name. She had made it clear that she would not be answering any questions. She alleged that Sergeant B. had told her in so many words that the Army knew that she had not committed any crime but that her file had been lost and the Army wanted to update it. She said that she had been questioned about her brothers in the USA, their whereabouts and her contacts with them, but not about the purchase of arms for the Provisional IRA or about any offence. She accepted that she had been in contact with her brothers and had been to the USA, including a visit that year (1985). She believed that the Army had wanted to obtain information about her brothers. On leaving the centre, she had told the officials that she would be seeing them in court.
20. As appears from the transcript of her evidence, Corporal D. gave an account of her briefing on the morning of the arrest. She stated that at the briefing she had been told the first applicant’s name and address and the grounds on which she was wanted for questioning, namely her suspected involvement in the collection of money for the purchase of weapons from America. She testified that "my suspicions were aroused by my briefing, and my belief was that Mrs Murray was suspected of collecting money to purchase arms".
21. Corporal D. was further examined about the interrogation of the first applicant at Springfield Road. She stated that she recalled that questions had been asked of the applicant by the interviewer and that the applicant had refused to answer any questions put to her. She recalled that the interviewer had asked a few more questions when he returned to the room after leaving it but that she could not really remember what they were about. Counsel for the defence returned to the question of the interview of the applicant towards the end of his examination of Corporal D. in the following exchange:
22. Sergeant B. was examined and cross-examined about his completion of part 1 of the standard record form when standing at the reception desk. He said that the first applicant had stated her name but refused to give her address or date of birth or any further information. He expressly denied the applicant’s allegation that he had said to her that he knew she was not a criminal and that he just wanted to update her files which had been lost. He gave evidence that information recorded in 1980 on the occasion of a previous arrest of the first applicant had in any event not been lost, since it had been used to complete the details on the first page of the form when she had refused to answer any questions.
23. The issue of the interview of the first applicant was specifically addressed in the final submission of defence counsel, in which the following exchange is partially recorded in the transcript:
24. In his judgment of 25 October 1985 Murray J. gave detailed consideration to the evidence of Corporal D. and Sergeant B. on the one hand and the first applicant on the other. Murray J. "could not possibly accept the [first applicant’s] evidence" that she had been told by Sergeant B. that she was not suspected of any offence and that he was just updating his records. He similarly rejected the applicant’s claim that Corporal D. at no time genuinely suspected her of having committed an offence. In the light of the evidence of Corporal D. herself, who was described as a "transparently honest witness", the judge was
25. Murray J. also rejected the first applicant’s claim that section 14 of the 1978 Act had been used with a view to screening in order to gain low-level intelligence: he accepted the evidence of Corporal D. and Sergeant B., which had been tested in cross-examination, that the purpose of the applicant’s arrest and detention under the section had been to establish facts concerning the offence of which she was suspected.
26. Murray J. likewise rejected the first applicant’s argument that the photographing of her gave rise to a cause of action. His understanding of the law was that merely taking the photograph of a person, even against their will, without physically interfering with or defaming the person was not tortious.
27. The first applicant’s action before the High Court was therefore dismissed.
28. The first applicant thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal. She again challenged the legality of her arrest on the grounds, inter alia
29. The Court of Appeal further unanimously rejected the first applicant’s complaint that the purpose of her arrest and detention, and the whole purport of her questioning, was a fishing expedition unrelated to the matters of which she was suspected and designed to obtain low-grade intelligence about the applicant and others. In rejecting this complaint, the Court of Appeal took account of the evidence which had been adduced on both sides:
30. The first applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal also concerned certain related matters such as the legality of the search of the applicants’ house, in respect of which the Court of Appeal found that there was a sufficient basis in section 14(3) of the 1978 Act (see paragraphs 36 and 38(d) below). The Court of Appeal held that the implied authority granted to the Army under section 14 included a power to interrogate a detained person and, as a practical necessity, a power to record personal particulars and details concerning the arrest and detention. It further found that the standard record form known as the "screening proforma" contained no information which might not have been relevant to the resolution of the suspicion.
31. The first applicant was granted leave by the Court of Appeal to appeal to the House of Lords. This appeal was rejected on 25 May 1988 (Murray v. Ministry of Defence, [1988] Weekly Law Reports 692).
32. In the House of Lords the applicant did not pursue the allegation that she had not been arrested on the basis of a genuine and honest suspicion that she had committed an offence.
33. The first applicant had also maintained that the failure to inform her that she was arrested until the soldiers were about to leave the house rendered the arrest unlawful. This submission was also rejected by the House of Lords. Lord Griffiths held as follows (at pp. 699H-701A):
34. Before the House of Lords the first applicant also pursued a claim that her period of detention exceeded what was reasonably required to make a decision whether to release her or hand her over to the police. In this regard the applicant complained that the standard record form (the "screening proforma") constituted an improper basis for questioning a suspect on the ground that it asked questions not directly relevant to the suspected offence; it was also suggested that the evidence did not show that the questioning of the applicant was directed to the matters of which she was suspected. The allegation was unanimously rejected by the House of Lords. Lord Griffiths observed as follows (at pp. 703F-704C):
35. For more than twenty years the population of Northern Ireland, which totals about one and a half million people, has been subjected to a campaign of terrorism. During that time thousands of persons in Northern Ireland have been killed, maimed or injured. The campaign of terror has extended to the rest of the United Kingdom and to the mainland of Europe.
36. The first applicant was arrested under section 14 of the 1978 Act, which at the relevant time provided as follows:
37. In 1983 Sir George Baker, a retired senior member of the judiciary, was invited by the Government to review the operation of the 1978 Act in order to determine whether its provisions struck the right balance between the need, on the one hand, to maintain as fully as possible the liberties of the individual and, on the other, to provide the security forces and the courts with adequate powers to enable them to protect the public from current and foreseeable incidence of terrorist crime. In the resultant report specific consideration was given to, inter alia, including a requirement in section 14 of the 1978 Act that an arrest should be based upon reasonable suspicion. While expressly recognising the risk that the facts raising the suspicion might come from a confidential source which could not be disclosed in court in a civil action for wrongful arrest, Sir George Baker concluded that the inclusion of a requirement of reasonableness would not in fact make any difference to the actions of the military and recommended an amendment to the 1978 Act accordingly. That recommendation was implemented in June 1987.
38. The scope and exercise of the section 14 powers were considered by the domestic courts in the proceedings in the present case. The applicable law, as stated by the judgments in these proceedings, is that when the legality of an arrest or detention under section 14 is challenged (whether by way of habeas corpus or in proceedings for damages for wrongful arrest or false imprisonment), the burden lies on the military to justify their acts and, in particular, to establish the following elements:
39. Section 11 of the 1978 Act, which concerns police arrest, provides in paragraph 4:
40. In the general law of Northern Ireland, as in English law, it is lawful to take a photograph of a person without his or her consent, provided no force is used and the photograph is not exploited in such a way as to defame the person concerned (see paragraphs 26 and 30 in fine above).
41. As was confirmed in particular by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in the present case, the standard record form (known as the "screening proforma") was an integral part of the examination of the first applicant following her arrest, and the legal authority for recording certain personal details about her in the form derived from the lawfulness of her arrest, detention and examination under section 14 of the 1978 Act (see paragraph 30, first sub-paragraph in fine, and paragraph 34 above). The implied lawful authority conferred by section 14 of the 1978 Act to record information about the first applicant equally provided the legal basis for the retention of the information.
42. The applicants applied to the Commission on 28 September 1988 (application no. 14310/88).
43. On 10 December 1991 the Commission declared admissible all the first applicant’s complaints and the other applicants’ complaint under Article 8 (art. 8) in connection with the entry into and search of the family home. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.
44. In its report of 17 February 1993 (Article 31) (art. 31) the Commission expressed the opinion that
45. At the public hearing on 24 January 1994 the Government maintained in substance the concluding submission set out in their memorial, whereby they invited the Court to hold
46. On the same occasion the applicants likewise maintained in substance the conclusions and requests formulated at the close of their memorial, whereby they requested the Court
47. The applicants’ complaints concern the first applicant’s arrest and detention by the Army under special criminal legislation enacted to deal with acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. As has been noted in several previous judgments by the Court, the campaign of terrorism waged in Northern Ireland over the last quarter of a century has taken a terrible toll, especially in terms of human life and suffering (see paragraph 35 above).
48. The first applicant, Mrs Margaret Murray, alleged that her arrest and detention by the Army were in breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:
49. Before the Convention institutions the first applicant did not dispute that her arrest and detention were "lawful" under Northern Ireland law and, in particular, "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law", as required by Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1). She submitted that she had not been arrested on "reasonable suspicion" of having committed a criminal offence and that the purpose of her arrest and subsequent detention had not been to bring her before a competent legal authority within the meaning of paragraph 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c).
50. Mrs Murray was arrested and detained by virtue of section 14 of the 1978 Act (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above). This provision, as construed by the domestic courts, empowered the Army to arrest and detain persons suspected of the commission of an offence provided, inter alia, that the suspicion of the arresting officer was honestly and genuinely held (see paragraphs 36 and 38(b) above). It is relevant but not decisive that the domestic legislation at the time merely imposed this essentially subjective standard: the Court’s task is to determine whether the objective standard of "reasonable suspicion" laid down in Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) was met in the circumstances of the application of the legislation in the particular case.
51. In its judgment in the above-mentioned case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley, which was concerned with arrests carried out by the Northern Ireland police under a similarly worded provision of the 1978 Act, the Court stated as follows (pp. 16-18, paras. 32 and 34):
52. In the present case the Government maintained that there existed strong and specific grounds, founded on information from a reliable but secret source, for the Army to suspect that Mrs Murray was involved in the collection of funds for terrorist purposes. However, the "primary" information so provided could not be revealed in the interests of protecting lives and personal safety. In the Government’s submission, the fact that they had maintained that this was the foundation of the suspicion should be given considerable weight by the Court. They also pointed to a number of other facts capable of supporting, albeit indirectly, the reasonableness of the suspicion, including notably the findings made by the domestic courts in the proceedings brought by Mrs Murray, the very recent conviction of her brothers in the USA of offences connected with the purchase of weapons for the Provisional IRA, her own visits to the USA and her contacts with her brothers there (see especially paragraphs 10, 19, 24, 25, 28 and 29 above). They submitted that all these matters taken together provided sufficient facts and information to satisfy an objective observer that there was a reasonable suspicion in the circumstances of the case. Any other conclusion by the Court would, they feared, prohibit arresting authorities from effecting an arrest of a person suspected of being a terrorist based primarily on reliable but secret information and would inhibit the arresting authorities in taking effective measures to counter organised terrorism.
53. The first applicant, on the other hand, considered that the Government had failed to discharge the onus of disclosing sufficient facts to enable the Convention institutions to conclude that the suspicion grounding her arrest was reasonable or anything more than the "honest" suspicion required under Northern Ireland law. As in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley, the Government’s explanation did not meet the minimum standards set by Article 5 para. 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c) for judging the reasonableness of her arrest and detention. She did not accept that the reason advanced for non-disclosure was a genuine or valid one. She in her turn pointed to circumstances said to cast doubt on the reasonableness of the suspicion. Thus, had the suspicion really been reasonable, she would not have been arrested under the four-hour power granted by section 14 of the 1978 Act but under more extensive powers; she would have been questioned by the police, not the Army; time would not have been spent in gathering personal details and in photographing her; she would have been questioned for more than one hour and fifteen minutes; she would have been questioned about her own alleged involvement and not just about her brothers in the USA; and she would have been cautioned. In reply to the Government the first applicant contended that the issue which the domestic courts inquired into was not the objective reasonableness of any suspicion but the subjective state of mind of the arresting officer, Corporal D.
54. For the Commission, the Government’s explanation in the present case was not materially distinguishable from that provided in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley. It took the view that no objective evidence to corroborate the unrevealed information had been adduced in support of the suspicion that the first applicant had been involved in collecting money for Provisional IRA arms purchases other than her kinship with her convicted brothers. That, the Commission concluded, was insufficient to satisfy the minimum standard set by Article 5 para. 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c).
55. With regard to the level of "suspicion", the Court would note firstly that, as was observed in its judgment in the case of Brogan and Others, "sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1-c) does not presuppose that the [investigating authorities] should have obtained sufficient evidence to bring charges, either at the point of arrest or while [the arrested person is] in custody. Such evidence may have been unobtainable or, in view of the nature of the suspected offences, impossible to produce in court without endangering the lives of others" (loc. cit., p. 29, para. 53). The object of questioning during detention under sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1-c) is to further the criminal investigation by way of confirming or dispelling the concrete suspicion grounding the arrest. Thus, facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a charge, which comes at the next stage of the process of criminal investigation.
56. The length of the deprivation of liberty at risk may also be material to the level of suspicion required. The period of detention permitted under the provision by virtue of which Mrs Murray was arrested, namely section 14 of the 1978 Act, was limited to a maximum of four hours.
57. With particular regard to the "reasonableness" of the suspicion, the principles stated in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment are to be applied in the present case, although as pointed out in that judgment, the existence or not of a reasonable suspicion in a concrete instance depends ultimately on the particular facts.
58. The Court would firstly reiterate its recognition that the use of confidential information is essential in combating terrorist violence and the threat that organised terrorism poses to the lives of citizens and to democratic society as a whole (see also the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 23, para. 48). This does not mean, however, that the investigating authorities have carte blanche under Article 5 (art. 5) to arrest suspects for questioning, free from effective control by the domestic courts or by the Convention supervisory institutions, whenever they choose to assert that terrorism is involved (ibid., p. 23, para. 49).
59. As to the present case, the terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland, the carnage it has caused over the years and the active engagement of the Provisional IRA in that campaign are established beyond doubt. The Court also accepts that the power of arrest granted to the Army by section 14 of the 1978 Act represented a bona fide attempt by a democratically elected parliament to deal with terrorist crime under the rule of law. That finding is not altered by the fact that the terms of the applicable legislation were amended in 1987 as a result of the Baker Report so as to include a requirement that the arrest should be based on reasonable, rather than merely honest, suspicion (see paragraph 37 above).
60. Nevertheless, in the words of the Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment, the respondent Government must in addition "furnish at least some facts or information capable of satisfying the Court that the arrested person was reasonably suspected of having committed the alleged offence" (see paragraph 51 above). In this connection, unlike in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley, the Convention institutions have had the benefit of the review that the national courts conducted of the facts and of Mrs Murray’s allegations in the civil proceedings brought by her.
61. It cannot be excluded that all or some of the evidence adduced before the national courts in relation to the genuineness of the suspicion on the basis of which Mrs Murray was arrested may also be material to the issue whether the suspicion was "reasonable" for the purposes of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c) of the Convention. At the very least the honesty and bona fides of a suspicion constitute one indispensable element of its reasonableness.
62. Some weeks before her arrest two of Mrs Murray’s brothers had been convicted in the USA of offences connected with purchase of arms for the Provisional IRA (see paragraph 10 above). As she disclosed in her evidence to the High Court, she had visited the USA and had contacts with her brothers there (see paragraph 19 above). The offences of which her brothers were convicted were ones that implied collaboration with "trustworthy" persons residing in Northern Ireland.
63. Having regard to the level of factual justification required at the stage of suspicion and to the special exigencies of investigating terrorist crime, the Court finds, in the light of all the above considerations, that there did exist sufficient facts or information which would provide a plausible and objective basis for a suspicion that Mrs Murray may have committed the offence of involvement in the collection of funds for the Provisional IRA. On the particular facts of the present case, therefore, the Court is satisfied that, notwithstanding the lower standard of suspicion under domestic law, Mrs Murray can be said to have been arrested and detained on "reasonable suspicion" of the commission of a criminal offence, within the meaning of sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1-c).
64. In the first applicant’s submission, it was clear from the surrounding circumstances that she was not arrested for the purpose of bringing her before a "competent legal authority" but merely for the purpose of interrogating her with a view to gathering general intelligence. She referred to the entries made in her regard on the standard record form completed at the Army centre (see paragraph 15 above), to the failure of the Army to involve the police in her questioning and to the short (one-hour) period of her questioning (see paragraph 14 above).
65. Under the applicable law of Northern Ireland the power of arrest and detention granted to the Army under section 14 of the 1978 Act may not be used for any improper purpose such as intelligence-gathering (see paragraph 38(c) above). In the civil action brought by Mrs Murray against the Ministry of Defence the trial court judge found that on the evidence before him the purpose of her arrest and detention under section 14 of the 1978 Act had been to establish facts concerning the offence of which she was suspected (see paragraph 25 above). In reaching this conclusion the trial judge had had the benefit of seeing the various witnesses give their evidence and of evaluating their credibility. He accepted the evidence of Corporal D. and Sergeant B. as being truthful and rejected the claims of Mrs Murray, in particular her contention that she had been told by Sergeant B. that she was not suspected of any offence and had been arrested merely in order to bring her file up to date (see paragraphs 19, 20 to 22, 24 and 25 above). The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the evidence, in turn rejected her argument that the purpose of her arrest and detention had been a "fishing expedition" designed to obtain low-grade intelligence (see paragraph 29 above). This argument was not pursued before the House of Lords (see paragraph 32 above).
66. The Court’s task is to determine whether the conditions laid down by paragraph (c) of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1-c), including the pursuit of the prescribed legitimate purpose, have been fulfilled in the circumstances of the particular case. However, in this context it is not normally within the province of the Court to substitute its own finding of fact for that of the domestic courts, which are better placed to assess the evidence adduced before them (see, among other authorities, the X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, pp. 19-20, para. 43, in relation to Article 5 para. 1 (e) (art. 5-1-e); and the Klaas v. Germany judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29, in relation to Article 3 (art. 3)). In the present case no cogent elements have been produced by the first applicant in the proceedings before the Convention institutions which could lead the Court to depart from the findings of fact made by the Northern Ireland courts.
67. Mrs Murray was neither charged nor brought before a court but was released after an interview lasting a little longer than one hour (see paragraph 14 above). This does not necessarily mean, however, that the purpose of her arrest and detention was not in accordance with Article 5 para. 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c) since "the existence of such a purpose must be considered independently of its achievement" (see the above-mentioned Brogan and Others judgment, pp. 29-30, para. 53). As the domestic courts pointed out (see paragraphs 25 in fine, 29 in fine and 34 in fine above), in view of her persistent refusal to answer any questions at the Army centre (see paragraphs 13, 14 and 19 above) it is not surprising that the authorities were not able to make any headway in pursuing the suspicions against her. It can be assumed that, had these suspicions been confirmed, charges would have been laid and she would have been brought before the competent legal authority.
69. The arrest and detention of the first applicant must therefore be taken to have been effected for the purpose specified in paragraph 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c).
70. In conclusion, there has been no violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) in respect of the first applicant.
71. The first applicant also alleged a violation of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) of the Convention, which provides:
72. The relevant principles governing the interpretation and application of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) in cases such as the present one were explained by the Court in its Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment as follows (loc. cit., p. 19, para. 40):
73. The first applicant maintained that at no time during her arrest or detention had she been given any or sufficient information as to the grounds of her arrest. Although she had realised that the Army was interested in her brothers’ activities, she had not, she claimed, understood from the interview at the Army centre that she herself was suspected of involvement in fund-raising for the Provisional IRA. The only direct information she was given was the formal formula of arrest pronounced by Corporal D.
74. The Commission similarly took the view that it was impossible to draw any conclusions from what it described as the vague indications given by Corporal D. in evidence before the High Court as to whether the first applicant had been able to understand from the interview why she had been arrested. In the Commission’s opinion, it had not been shown that the questions asked of Mrs Murray during her interview were sufficiently precise to constitute the information as to the reasons for arrest required by Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2).
75. According to the Government, on the other hand, it was apparent from the trial evidence that in the interview it was made clear to Mrs Murray that she was suspected of the offence of collecting money for the Provisional IRA. The Government did not accept the Commission’s conclusion on the facts, which was at variance with the findings of the domestic courts. They considered it established that Mrs Murray had been given sufficient information as to the grounds of her arrest. In the alternative, even if insufficient information had been given to her to avail herself of her right under Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention to take legal proceedings to test the lawfulness of her detention, she had suffered no prejudice thereby which would give rise to a breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) since she had been released rapidly, before any determination of the lawfulness of her detention could have taken place.
76. It is common ground that, apart from repeating the formal words of arrest required by law, the arresting officer, Corporal D., also told Mrs Murray the section of the 1978 Act under which the arrest was being carried out (see paragraphs 12 and 36 above). This bare indication of the legal basis for the arrest, taken on its own, is insufficient for the purposes of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) (see the above-mentioned Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment, p. 19, para. 41).
77. During the trial of Mrs Murray’s action against the Ministry of Defence, evidence as to the interview at the Army centre was given by Mrs Murray and Corporal D., but not by the soldier who had conducted the interview (see paragraphs 14, 19 and 21 above). Mrs Murray testified that she had been questioned about her brothers in the USA and about her contacts with them but not about the purchase of arms for the Provisional IRA or about any offence (see paragraph 19 above). Corporal D. did not have a precise recollection as to the content of the questions put to Mrs Murray. This is not perhaps surprising since the trial took place over three years after the events - Mrs Murray having waited eighteen months before bringing her action - and Corporal D., although present, had not taken an active part in the interview (see paragraphs 14, 16, 17 and 21 above). Corporal D. did however remember that questions had been asked about money and about America and the trial judge found her to be a "transparently honest witness" (see paragraphs 21 and 24 above). Shortly before the arrest two of Mrs Murray’s brothers had, presumably to the knowledge of all concerned in the interview, been convicted in the USA of offences connected with the purchase of weapons for the Provisional IRA (see paragraph 10 above).
78. Mrs Murray was arrested at her home at 7 a.m. and interviewed at the Army centre between 8.20 a.m. and 9.35 a.m. on the same day (see paragraphs 12 and 14 above). In the context of the present case this interval cannot be regarded as falling outside the constraints of time imposed by the notion of promptness in Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2).
79. In view of the foregoing findings it is not necessary for the Court to examine the Government’s alternative submission.
80. In conclusion, there was no breach of Article 5 para. 2 (art. 5-2) in respect of the first applicant.
81. The first applicant finally alleged in relation to Article 5 a violation of paragraph 5 (art. 5-5) of the Convention, which reads:
82. As the Court has found no violation of Article 5 paras. 1 or 2 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2), no issue arises under Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5). There has accordingly been no violation of this latter provision in the present case.
83. All six applicants claimed to be the victims of a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, which provides:
84. The first applicant complained of the manner in which she was treated both in her home and at the Army centre; in the latter connection she objected to the recording of personal details concerning herself and her family, as well as the photograph which was taken of her without her knowledge or consent (see paragraphs 12 to 15 above). All six applicants contended that the entry into and search of their family home by the Army, including the confinement of the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants for a short while in one room, violated Article 8 (art. 8) (see paragraph 12 above).
85. Both the Government and the Commission considered that the matters complained of were justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 (art. 8-2) as being lawful measures necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime in the context of the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
86. It was not contested that the impugned measures interfered with the applicants’ exercise of their right to respect for their private and family life and their home.
87. On the other hand, the applicants did not concede that the resultant interferences had been "in accordance with the law". They disputed that the impugned measures all formed an integral part of Mrs Murray’s arrest and detention or that the domestic courts had affirmed their lawfulness, in particular as concerns the retention of the records including the photograph of Mrs Murray.
88. Entry into and search of a home by Army personnel such as occurred in the present case were explicitly permitted by section 14 (3) of the 1978 Act for the purpose of effecting arrests under that section (see paragraphs 36 and 38(d) above). The Court of Appeal upheld the legality of the search in the present case (see paragraph 30 above). The short period of restraint endured by the other members of Mrs Murray’s family when they were asked to assemble in one room was held by the House of Lords to be a necessary and proper part of the procedure of arrest of Mrs Murray (see paragraph 33 above). The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords also confirmed that the Army’s implied lawful authority under section 14 extended to interrogating a detained person and to recording personal details of the kind contained in the standard record form (see paragraph 41 above and also paragraphs 15, 30 and 34). It is implicit in the judgments of the national courts that the retention of such details was covered by the same lawful authority derived from section 14 (see paragraph 41 in fine above). The taking and, by implication, also the retention of a photograph of the first applicant without her consent had no statutory basis but, as explained by the trial court judge and the Court of Appeal, were lawful under the common law (see paragraphs 26, 30, 39 and 40 above).
89. These measures undoubtedly pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of crime.
90. It remains to be determined whether they were necessary in a democratic society and, in particular, whether the means employed were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In this connection it is not for the Court to substitute for the assessment of the national authorities its own assessment of what might be the best policy in the field of investigation of terrorist crime (see the above-mentioned Klass and Others judgment, p. 23, para. 49). A certain margin of appreciation in deciding what measures to take both in general and in particular cases should be left to the national authorities.
91. The present judgment has already adverted to the responsibility of an elected government in a democratic society to protect its citizens and its institutions against the threats posed by organised terrorism and to the special problems involved in the arrest and detention of persons suspected of terrorist-linked offences (see paragraphs 47, 51 and 58 above). These two factors affect the fair balance that is to be struck between the exercise by the individual of the right guaranteed to him or her under paragraph 1 of Article 8 (art. 8-1) and the necessity under paragraph 2 (art. 8-2) for the State to take effective measures for the prevention of terrorist crimes (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Klass and Others judgment, p. 28, para. 59).
92. The domestic courts held that Mrs Murray was genuinely and honestly suspected of the commission of a terrorist-linked crime (see paragraphs 24 and 28 above). The European Court, for its part, has found on the evidence before it that this suspicion could be regarded as reasonable for the purposes of sub-paragraph (c) Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1-c) (see paragraph 63 above). The Court accepts that there was in principle a need both for powers of the kind granted by section 14 of the 1978 Act and, in the particular case, to enter and search the home of the Murray family in order to arrest Mrs Murray.
93. Neither can it be regarded as falling outside the legitimate bounds of the process of investigation of terrorist crime for the competent authorities to record and retain basic personal details concerning the arrested person or even other persons present at the time and place of arrest. None of the personal details taken during the search of the family home or during Mrs Murray’s stay at the Army centre would appear to have been irrelevant to the procedures of arrest and interrogation (see paragraphs 12 to 15 above). Similar conclusions apply to the taking and retention of a photograph of Mrs Murray at the Army centre (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above). In this connection too, the Court does not find that the means employed were disproportionate to the aim pursued.
94. In the light of the particular facts of the case, the Court finds that the various measures complained of can be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (art. 8-2).
95. In conclusion there has been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) in respect of any of the applicants.
96. The first applicant submitted that, contrary to Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention, she had no effective remedy under domestic law in respect of her claims under Articles 5 and 8 (art. 5, art. 8). Article 13 (art. 13) reads as follows:
97. The Commission did not consider it necessary to examine the complaint under this head on the ground that no separate issue arose under Article 13 (art. 13) in view of its conclusion that Article 5 para. 5 (art. 5-5) had been violated.
98. Under the Convention scheme of protection of the right to liberty and security of person, the lex specialis as regards entitlement to a remedy is paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4) (see the Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258-B, p. 57, para. 76), which provides:
99. The first applicant argued that effective remedies for her claims under Article 8 (art. 8) regarding the Army’s actions in entering and searching her house were lacking since such domestic proceedings as might have been taken in relation to entry and search would have failed because domestic law provided lawful excuse for those actions.
100. The Court likewise arrives at the same conclusion as the Commission. Article 13 (art. 13) guarantees the availability of a remedy at national level to enforce the substance of the Convention rights in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. Its effect is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent "national authority" both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief in meritorious cases (see, inter alia, the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, para. 122, and the authorities cited there). The remedy available to Mrs Murray would have satisfied these conditions. As the Commission pointed out, her feeble prospects of success in the light of the particular circumstances of her case do not detract from the "effectiveness" of the remedy for the purpose of Article 13 (art. 13) (ibid.).
101. As to her claims under Article 8 (art. 8) regarding the taking and retention of a photograph and personal details, the first applicant agreed with the separate opinion of Sir Basil Hall, who took the view that since Northern Ireland law offered no protection for an individual in her position, there being no general right to privacy recognised under that law, Article 13 (art. 13) had been violated.
102. On this point too the Court comes to the same conclusion as the Commission.
103. The facts of the present case do not therefore disclose a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) in respect of the first applicant.
MURRAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT