O'Hara v. Chief Constable of the R.U.C., (1996)

Extract

---

O'Hara v. Chief Constable of the R.U.C., (1996)

HOUSE OF LORDS

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Lord Mustill

Lord Steyn

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Hope of Craighead

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

O'HARA (A.P.)

(APPELLANT)

v.

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY

(RESPONDENT)

(NORTHERN IRELAND)

ON 12 DECEMBER 1996

LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY

My Lords,

I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the speeches to be delivered by my noble and learned friends Lords Steyn and Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons which they give I too would dismiss the appeal.

LORD MUSTILL

My Lords,

I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the speeches to be delivered by my noble and learned friends Lords Steyn and Lord Hope of Craighead. I agree with both, and would dismiss the appeal.

LORD STEYN

My Lords,

I gratefully adopt the account of the background to this appeal given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead. The appeal can be decided on narrow grounds. The arrest was prima facie unlawful. At trial the respondent sought to justify the arrest under section 12(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. So far as it is material section 12(1) reads as follows:

" . . . a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be-. . .

"(b) a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies; . . . ."

The constable made the arrest in connection with a murder which was undoubtedly an act of terrorism within the meaning of section 12(1) of the 1984 Act. It was common ground that subjectively the constable had the necessary suspicion. The question was whether the constable objectively had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the appellant was concerned in the murder. The constable said in evidence that his reasonable grounds for suspecting the appellant were based on a briefing by a superior officer. He was told that the appellant had been involved in the murder. The constable said that the superior officer ordered him to arrest the appellant. He did so. counsel for the appellant took the tacti...

See the full content of this document

---