![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions >> DPP Northern Ireland, In the Matter of [2000] NIQB 59 (1st December, 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2000/59.html Cite as: [2000] NIQB 59 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
1. This
is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions for judicial review of
a decision made on 28 April 2000 by Robert Alcorn RM whereby he ruled that
Robert Shaw, a defendant in criminal proceedings, had not been lawfully
remanded in custody on Sunday 23 April 2000.
2. Mr
Shaw was charged on 22 April 2000 with the offences of threatening to kill and
intimidation. It was not possible to hold a special court on that day. He was
therefore brought before a Justice of the Peace on the following day, Easter
Sunday. The Justice of the Peace ordered that he be remanded in custody to
appear before Larne Magistrates' Court on 28 April.
3. When
Mr Shaw appeared before Mr Alcorn at Larne Magistrates' Court on 28 April 2000,
his solicitor submitted that the remand in custody on 22 April 2000 was in
breach of Article 47(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)
1989 because that provision did not permit the bringing of a defendant before a
magistrates' court on a Sunday. The Resident Magistrate ruled that the remand
of the defendant on a Sunday was in breach of Article 47(4) of PACE. He
ordered that Mr Shaw be released.
4. Article
47(2) of the 1989 Order deals with the situation where an accused person is
charged in the same petty sessions district as the court before which he is to
be brought. It provides that the accused should be brought before the court as
soon as possible but, "in any event, not later than the day next following the
day on which he is to be charged with the offence".
5. Article
47(3) provides that where an accused is charged in a district other than that
where he is to be brought before a magistrates' court, he must be brought
before a court "as soon as practicable after he is charged". It also sets an
outer limit for the time by which he must be brought before such a court: "not
later than the day next following the day of his arrival in that district".
7. The
predecessor of this provision is Section 131 of the Magistrates Courts
(Northern Ireland) 1981. It provides :-
8. It
is clear from these provisions that one of the objectives of the 1989 Order was
to restrict to a reasonable minimum the length of time that an arrested person
spends in custody before being brought before a court. Article 47(4) must be
interpreted against that general background.
9. In
England and Wales the equivalent provision to Article 47(4) is section 46(8) of
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It provides :-
10. This
provision was considered by Bingham LJ in
R
v Avon Courts Committee ex parte Broome
[1988] 1 WLR 1246. He stated that it was the overriding duty of the police to
bring a person charged with an offence before a court as soon as was practicable.
11. On
behalf of the Director, Mr Maguire submitted that there was nothing in the 1989
Order and Article 47(4) in particular which forbade the bringing of a person
charged before a court on a Sunday. The purpose of Article 47(4) was to set an
outer limit by which the person charged must be brought before a court. It
should be interpreted as permitting a court to sit on a Sunday, where that was
practicable.
12. On
behalf of Mr Shaw, Mr Larkin submitted that the language of Article 47(4)
clearly prohibited the holding of a court on Sunday. He drew a contrast
between the terms of the English provision and that in Northern Ireland. While
the former could be interpreted as permitting the bringing of an accused person
before a court on Sunday, the latter did not. It must be presumed, he argued,
that the difference in the two provisions was deliberate. He suggested that
the 1989 Order was drafted in order to reflect the greater respect accorded by
the community in this jurisdiction to the days specified in Article 47(4).
13. It
is a clear principle of statutory interpretation that individual provisions in
a statute should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the overall
purpose of the legislation. Part V of the 1989 Order (in which Article 47 is
contained) deals with conditions and duration of detention. The general
purpose of this Part can readily be deduced from the various Articles which
comprise Part V. Article 35(1) provides that a person arrested for an offence
shall not be kept in police detention except in accordance with the provisions
contained in Part V. Article 35(2) requires a custody officer to order the
immediate release from detention of a person as soon as the grounds for his
detention have ceased to apply. Article 38 makes provision for a custody
officer to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a detained
person; if there is not sufficient evidence to charge, the detained person must
be released unless the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing
that his detention is necessary to secure or preserve evidence. Under Article
39 an arrested person who has been charged must be released on bail unless
certain conditions apply. Article 41 prescribes a system of periodic review of
the justification for the continued detention of an arrested person. Article
42 places limits on the detention of persons without charge. Articles 43 to 45
prescribe rules for the authorisation of continued detention.
14. In
our view the general purpose of Part V can be discerned from these provisions
and from Article 47 itself. It is to provide safeguards for persons in
relation to the circumstances and conditions in which they may be detained and
to keep to a justified minimum the period of detention. It would be quite
inconsistent with that purpose to prohibit the bringing to court of persons on
Sundays where that could be conveniently arranged. If Article 47(4) had the
effect suggested by Mr Larkin, it would follow that if Christmas Day fell on a
Monday, a person charged on the Saturday before
could
not
be
brought before the court until Tuesday. This could not have been the intention
of the legislature.
15. We
are satisfied that the text of Article 47(4) permits the interpretation
contended for by the applicant and that such interpretation is consistent with
the general purpose of Part V of the 1989 Order. It is also in accord with
Article 5.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides :-
16. We
have concluded that the remand of Mr Shaw on 22 April 2000 was lawful. We will
therefore make a declaration that the decision of the Resident Magistrate was
wrong in law. If necessary, we will hear counsel on any further or consequent
relief that may be required.