8. Reclamantul a fost arestat în zorii zilei de 21 octombrie 1990 conform secțiunii 14 din Legea privind Prevenirea Terorismului (Dispoziții Temporare) din 1989 în Strabane de către ofițeri de poliție din Constabulary Regal al Usterului (RUC) care investigau uciderea unui fosl membru al Regimentului de Apărare al Usterului. Reclamantul a fost transportat la centrul special de detenție pentru investigații teroriste de la Castlereagh, Belfast. 9. Reclamantul a fost interogat timp de treizeci și cinci de ore pe zile consecutive de către ofițeri de poliție RUC, începând de la ora 11:01 a.m. pe 21 octombrie până pe 25 octombrie. 10. În momentul arestării reclamantului (ora 1:50 a.m. pe 21 octombrie), a fost luată o decizie inițială de a amâna accesul reclamantului la avocat de către Superintendentul M., ofițerul de poliție responsabil cu investigația.
El a comunicat această decizie staiei de poliție Castlereagh prin telefon și a confirmat-o în scris când a ajuns la Castlereagh. Reclamantul ajunsese deja la Castlereagh și ceruse un avocat. Într-o revizuire la ora 21:15 pe 21 octombrie 1990, reclamantul a fost informat că dreptul său de a vedea un avocat fusese amânat pentru douăzeci și patru de ore. Amânarea era deci efectivă până în dimineața zilei de 22 octombrie. Avocatul său, dl. Fahy, a fost informat despre amânare dar nu s-a prezentat decât la ora 12:10 p.m. pe 23 octombrie. A existat o perioadă de timp din zorii zilei de 22 octombrie când reclamantul nu mai era refuzat accesul la avocatul său. El a făcut admisiuni relevante după-amiaza.
11. Reclamantul nu l-a văzut pe avocatul său până a doua zi, și anume pe 23 octombrie. Primul interviu al reclamantului cu avocatul său a durat patruzeci de minute până la ora 12:50 p.m. și reclamantul nu a făcut nicio plângere privind maltratarea în această vizită. Reclamantul l-a văzut din nou pe avocatul său la ora 15:15 p.m. pe 25 octombrie și nici în acest caz nu s-a făcut nicio plângere privind maltratarea în acel interviu care a durat până la ora 16:00 p.m. În timpul primului interviu cu avocatul său, un polițist era prezent. Consultația a avut loc în vederea și auzul ofițerului de poliție care era în apropierea reclamantului și avocatului său. La începutul interviului, inspectorul de poliție a comunicat avocatului în prezența reclamantului că nu vor fi discutate nume sau informații care ar putea ajuta alți suspecți și că interviul ar trebui să fie pur și simplu pe baza sfaturilor juridice.
12. Reclamantul a fost văzut de medici de un total de opt ori în timpul șederii sale la Castlereagh, începând cu un examen după sosirea sa la Castlereagh în zorii zilei de 21 octombrie 1990. El nu a făcut nicio plângere privind maltratarea fiecărui medic care l-a examinat. Medicii nu au găsit nicio dovadă care să indice maltratare sau handicap mental. 13. Poliția a susținut că reclamantul și-a recunoscut implicarea în ucidere în timpul unui interviu după-amiaza pe 22 octombrie. Ei au declarat, de asemenea, că în interviul ulterior reclamantul a semnat o declarație în acest sens și că după aceea a admis liber și voluntar activități teroriste suplimentare și a semnat alte declarații. 14. Reclamantul a susținut că nu și-a oferit voluntar declarațiile liber, ci, în schimb, toate declarațiile verbale și scrise au fost extrase prin maltratare, amenințări de maltratare, amenințări la adresa familiei sale și alte conduite opresive.
Acuzațiile de maltratare au fost negate de RUC. 15. Toate declarațiile verbale și scrise făcute de reclamant au fost obținute de ofițerii de poliție după administrarea de către aceștia a avertismentelor conform Articolului 3 din Ordinul privind Dovezile Penale (Irlanda de Nord) din 1988, în termenii următori: "Nu trebuie să spui nimic decât dacă dorești, dar trebuie să te avertizez că dacă nu menționezi niciun fapt pe care te bazezi în apărarea ta în justiție, eșecul tău de a profita de această oportunitate pentru a-l menționa poate fi tratat în justiție ca susținând orice dovezi relevante împotriva ta. Dacă dorești să spui ceva, ceea ce spui poate fi dat ca dovadă." 16. Avocatul reclamantului nu a fost niciodată autorizat să fie prezent la niciun interviu al reclamantului, nici o persoană independentă; nici interviile nu au fost înregistrate pe video sau casetă audio.
17. Pe 25 octombrie 1990, la ora 19:30, reclamantul a fost transferat de la Castlereagh la stația RUC Strandtown, unde a fost acuzat. 18. Pe 14 octombrie 1993 reclamantul a fost judecat de un singur judecător, McCollum J, stând fără jurat, pentru un total de optsprezece infracțiuni grave inclusiv, inter alia, ucidere, tentativă de ucidere, posesiune de arme de foc și munițiile cu intenție, posesiune de explozibili cu intenție, falsa închisoare, jefuirea unui vehicul motor și apartenența la o organizație interzisă, și anume Armata Republicană Irlandeză Provizoriu (IRA). A fost găsit vinovat pe toate capetele de acuzare.
8. The applicant was arrested in the early morning of 21 October 1990 under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in Strabane by police officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“the RUC”) investigating the murder of a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The applicant was transported to the special holding centre for terrorist investigations at Castlereagh, Belfast. 9. The applicant was interviewed for thirty-five hours on consecutive days by RUC police officers, beginning at 11.01 a.m. on 21 October until 25 October. 10. At the time when the applicant was arrested (1.50 a.m. on 21 October), there was an initial decision made to defer the applicant’s access to a solicitor by Superintendent M., the police officer in charge of the investigation.
He communicated this decision to Castlereagh police station by telephone and confirmed this in writing when he arrived in Castlereagh. The applicant had by this time arrived in Castlereagh and had requested a solicitor. At a review at 9.15 p.m. on 21 October 1990, the applicant was informed that his right to see a solicitor had been delayed for twenty-four hours. The deferral was therefore effective until the morning of 22 October. His solicitor, Mr Fahy, was informed of the deferral but did not attend until 12.10 p.m. on 23 October. There was a period of time from early morning on 22 October when the applicant was not being denied access to his solicitor. He made relevant admissions that afternoon.
11. The applicant did not see his solicitor until the next day, namely 23 October. The applicant’s first interview with his solicitor lasted forty minutes until 12.50 p.m. and the applicant made no complaint of ill-treatment during that visit. The applicant saw his solicitor again at 3.15 p.m. on 25 October and again no complaint of ill-treatment was made in that interview, which lasted until 4.00 p.m. During the first interview with his solicitor, a policeman was present. The consultation took place within sight and hearing of the police officer who was in close proximity to the applicant and his solicitor. At the beginning of the interview, the police inspector told the solicitor in the presence of the applicant that no names were to be discussed or information conveyed which could assist other suspects and that the interview should be purely on legal advice.
12. The applicant was seen by doctors on a total of eight occasions during his stay in Castlereagh, beginning with an examination following his arrival in Castlereagh in the early morning of 21 October 1990. He made no complaint of ill-treatment to any of the doctors who examined him. The doctors found no evidence to indicate any ill-treatment or mental handicap. 13. The police alleged that the applicant admitted his involvement in the murder during an interview in the afternoon of 22 October. They further stated that in a later interview the applicant signed a statement to this effect and that thereafter he freely and voluntarily admitted additional terrorist activity and signed further statements.
14. The applicant alleged that he had not volunteered the statements freely but, instead, that all the verbal and written statements had been extracted by ill-treatment, threats of ill-treatment, threats to his family and other oppressive conduct. The allegations of ill-treatment were denied by the RUC. 15. All of the verbal and written statements made by the applicant had been obtained by the police officers after the administration by them of cautions pursuant to Article 3 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, in the following terms: “You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you.
If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence.” 16. The applicant’s solicitor was never permitted to be present at any of the applicant’s interviews, nor was any independent person; nor were the interviews recorded on video or audiotape. 17. On 25 October 1990, at 7.30 p.m., the applicant was transferred from Castlereagh to Strandtown RUC station, where he was charged. 18. On 14 October 1993 the applicant was tried by a single judge, McCollum J, sitting without a jury, for a total of eighteen serious offences including, inter alia, murder, attempted murder, possession of firearms and ammunition with intent, possession of explosives with intent, false imprisonment, hijacking a motor vehicle, and membership of a proscribed organisation, namely the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the “IRA”).
He was found guilty on all counts. 19. The disputed verbal and written statements by the applicant constituted the only evidence connecting the applicant to the charges brought. The admissibility of the statements was challenged by the applicant on the basis that they had been obtained by torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or, alternatively, should be excluded in exercise of the judge’s discretion. A voir dire (submission on a point of law in the absence of the jury) commenced and the applicant gave evidence over ten days which consisted of a highly detailed account of ill-treatment which he alleged he had experienced from the police. The officers denied ill-treating the applicant. 20. The events in the interviews had been filmed by television camera and the pictures relayed to a monitor screen in a special room at Castlereagh police station.
At all times, an officer of the rank of inspector was on duty for the purpose of viewing the monitor screens. A number of officers gave evidence and all of them told the court that they had seen no evidence of impropriety of any kind occurring during the interviews with the applicant. Indeed, none of them had ever witnessed an example of bad behaviour by an interviewing officer. 21. The doctors, who examined the applicant a number of times in Castlereagh, gave evidence that the applicant had been cooperative and composed, that there were no signs of recent injuries and that the applicant did not complain of ill-treatment. Treatment had been given to the applicant in respect of his history of duodenal ulceration.
22. The applicant’s account of the interrogation was rejected by the trial judge, who said: “Having heard the officers concerned who impressed me as being honest and conscientious officers, I am absolutely convinced that all of [the applicant’s] allegations of ill-treatment at this stage are completely unfounded ... In my view if there had been any truth in the account of ill-treatment given by [the applicant] his distress would have been obvious to the doctors ... None of the medical evidence therefore gave any credence to the account given by [the applicant] in the witness box and all of that evidence is consistent with his being treated with absolute propriety … I am satisfied ... that in no respect was [the applicant] subjected to any treatment which could be described as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, violence or oppression in order to induce a confession from him.
I am satisfied that he was not threatened in any way.” 23. At the trial, there was unchallenged independent medical evidence to the effect that: 1. The applicant had a full-scale intelligence quotient of 72. 2. The applicant was on the borderline of mental retardation. 3. The applicant had a reading ability equivalent to that of an average 10-year-old child. 4. His suggestibility was average but he had a high level of compliance. 24. Evidence was given later in the trial by a psychologist that “[the applicant] is a psychologically vulnerable man and in my view would have required appropriate support in the context of police interviews. [The applicant’s] psychological vulnerabilities taken together with the lack of support from either the Solicitor or an appropriate adult during the police interviews and the prolonged and intensive nature of the interviews would in my opinion be of relevance to the reliability of his admissions”.
25. In convicting the applicant, the judge rejected this evidence, finding that the applicant had not needed any form of independent support during the interviews and the police had been entitled to treat him as an ordinary member of society. He noted that the applicant’s earliest admissions did not follow particularly prolonged or intensive questioning and that during those interviews he persisted with a consistent story told with an air of conviction. He also noted that no one thought to have the applicant’s mental capacity investigated prior to the commencement of the trial.
The trial judge stated: “... I am satisfied that [the applicant] was not suffering from such a degree of mental handicap that would have required the police to exercise any special consideration for him and that his memory, understanding and intellect were quite adequate to enable him to resist making any false confession under questioning in Castlereagh and that the questioning was, therefore, not in any respect unfair to him. If he was an easier subject than others or more manageable I do not consider that that would be a matter which throws any doubt on the admissibility of any statements of confessions made by him”. 26. The police questioning which led to his confessions was therefore not unfair and the judge had no doubt about the reliability of the admissions made by the applicant.
27. In relation to the question of access to a solicitor, the judge observed that the deferral of twenty-four hours was effective until the morning of 22 October 1990. However, the applicant’s solicitor did not arrive until 12.10 p.m. on 23 October. The trial judge noted that there had been a suggestion that the solicitor may have been unintentionally misled as to the length of time of the deferral but found, having heard the solicitor and police officers concerned, that he was satisfied that the solicitor was accurately informed that the deferral was for twenty-four hours. He further noted that it might well have been convenient for the solicitor to delay his visit to Castlereagh until the next day because a number of other prisoners had had access deferred until then.
In any event, it was not the deferral which prevented the applicant from seeing his solicitor after sometime early in the morning of 22 October but the fact that his solicitor did not arrive until 23 October. Incriminating admissions were made by the applicant at a time when he was no longer being denied access to a solicitor. The judge concluded that there was nothing improper in the decision to deny access for twenty-four hours, having regard to the police fears that messages might be passed through the solicitor with a view to alerting others implicated in offences.
28. The trial judge stated, inter alia: “Having considered the extent of the strength of character of the accused, his intellectual shortcomings and his nature I am quite satisfied that he was not a person for whom the regime of questioning in Castlereagh would of itself be oppressive ... I am further satisfied that nothing was said or done during his questioning the effect of which upon him would justify the exercise of a discretion to exclude the statement ... I am satisfied that ... his admissions were made freely, and accept the police evidence that what triggered the making of admissions by this accused was the fact that the police were able to demonstrate to him that they had information available to them which discredited the alibi that he had given them ... In my view the particular circumstances of this case provided ample grounds for the belief that other persons could be alerted if a solicitor had seen this accused within 24 hours.
In any case [the applicant] made no admission during the 24 hours for which the solicitor had been deferred. I am satisfied that the deferral was right and proper in this case and that in any case it was not the deferral that resulted in the accused not seeing his solicitor during the early part of 22 October.” 29. The judge further considered the applicant’s complaints that a police officer had been present during the first legal consultation with his solicitor and whether this had prevented him getting the full benefit of his solicitor’s advice. Evidence had been heard from the police inspector concerned who had stated that the purpose of sitting in to observe the interview was primarily to prevent information from being passed from the prisoner to the solicitor which might assist others suspected of involvement in the offence who had not yet been arrested.
Under cross-examination, he stated that he had not been told of any codes that might be used and that it would be hard to identify such a code if it was used. The judge found, on the evidence of the applicant, his solicitor and the police officer, that the solicitor had not been in the least inhibited by the presence of the police officers and, according to the applicant, had been quite prepared to raise the crucial evidential issues with him. He was satisfied that an objective state of affairs existed justifying both the initial deferral of access and the supervision of the interview, namely, two other suspects were still at large whom the police wished to interview. 30. The judge concluded that he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the confessions were made freely and voluntarily.
There was no ground for exercising his discretion to exclude any of the oral or written statements made by the applicant. The judge was accordingly satisfied that the applicant knew that he was playing a part in a murder plot and was therefore, inter alia, guilty of murder. 31. The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland. The Court of Appeal noted that the inspector had authorised the postponement of access to a solicitor before the applicant had made a request for a solicitor, which was in technical breach of the statutory provision. The Court of Appeal noted that there was no express sanction for breach of that provision. However, there was nothing unfair to the applicant as the deferral ran from the time of the arrest whenever the authorisation was given.
The Court of Appeal was satisfied that substantial reasons existed for the police to postpone access to a solicitor in this particular case pursuant to section 45(8)(b) and (e) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. In a judgment of 24 September 1996, the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal stating, inter alia: “We have no doubt that the learned trial judge was at all times aware of the need to bear the psychological evidence very much in mind when forming his conclusions both at the direction stage and when finally deciding if the Crown had established [the applicant’s] guilt beyond reasonable doubt ... We are entirely satisfied that the learned trial judge was entitled to refuse the application for a direction [regarding inadmissibility] and to rule the various statements to be admissible ... Equally our perusal of the evidence does not suggest that the learned judge should, in the exercise of his discretion have excluded the statements, or any of them, from evidence ... This is an appeal in which the evidence was lengthy and detailed.
We have carefully considered all the evidence and [the applicant’s counsel’s] closely reasoned submission. We have finally stood back from all the detail and looked at the case ‘in the round’ as [the applicant’s counsel] invited us to do. We are satisfied that [the applicant’s] guilt was fully established by his admission and that his convictions are neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory.” 32. On 28 July 1997 the applicant’s petition seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords was dismissed.
33. Section 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 provides in its relevant parts: “(1) In any criminal proceedings for a scheduled offence, ... a statement made by the accused may be given in evidence by the prosecution in so far as: (a) It is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and (b) It is not excluded by the court in pursuance of subsection (2) below or in the exercise of discretion referred to in subsection (3) below ... (2) Where in any such proceedings: (a) the prosecution proposes to give, or has given ... in evidence a statement made by the accused, and (b) prima facie evidence is adduced that the accused was subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or to any violence or threat of violence ... in order to induce him to make the statement then, unless the prosecution satisfies the court that the statement was not obtained by so subjecting the accused, ... the court shall do one of the following things, namely: (i) ... exclude the statement; (ii) ... continue the trial disregarding the statement; or (iii) in either case direct that the trial shall be restarted before a differently constituted court (before which the statement in question shall be inadmissible).
(3) ... in the case of any statement made by the accused and not obtained by subjecting him as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above, the court ... has a discretion to do one of the things mentioned in subsection (2)(i) to (iii) above if it appears to the court that it is appropriate to do so in order to avoid unfairness to the accused or otherwise in the interests of justice ...” 34. The Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 includes the following provisions: “(4) A person shall not be committed for trial, have a case to answer or be convicted of an offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure or refusal as is mentioned in Article 3 (2), 4 (4), 5 (2) or 6 (2) ... (7) Nothing in this Order prejudices any power of a court, in any proceedings, to exclude evidence (whether by preventing questions from being put or otherwise) at its discretion.” “Circumstances in which inferences may be drawn from the accused’s failure to mention particular facts when questioned, charged, ... (1) Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence, evidence is given that the accused (a) at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings;
or (b) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to mention any such fact, being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, paragraph (2) applies. (2) Where this paragraph applies (a) the court, in determining whether to commit the accused for trial or whether there is a case to answer, ... (c) the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may (i) draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper; (ii) on the basis of such inferences treat the failure as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the failure is material.
(3) Subject to any directions by the court, evidence tending to establish the failure may be given before or after evidence tending to establish the fact which the accused is alleged to have failed to mention ...” 35. Section 45 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (formerly section 15 of the 1987 Act) deals with the right of access to legal advice and provides in its relevant parts: “(1) A person who is detained under the terrorism provisions and is being held in police custody shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately. (2) A person shall be informed of the right conferred on him by subsection (1) as soon as practicable after he has become a person to whom the subsection applies.
(3) A request made by a person under subsection (1), and the time at which it is made, shall be recorded in writing unless it is made by him while at a court and being charged with an offence.
(4) If a person makes such a request, he must be permitted to consult a solicitor as soon as practicable except to the extent that any delay is permitted by this section … (8) An officer may only authorise a delay in complying with a request under subsection (1) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that the exercise of the right conferred by that subsection at the time when the detained person desires to exercise it – ... (b) will lead to the alerting of any person suspected of having committed such an offence but not yet arrested for it; or ... (d) will lead to interference with the gathering of information about the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; or (e) by alerting any person, will make it more difficult - i. to prevent an act of terrorism, or ii.
to secure the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism ...” 36. The delay must be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent and the detained person must be told the reason for the delay. The maximum delay is forty-eight hours. The officer may also give a direction that a person may only exercise his right to see a solicitor in the presence of a uniformed police officer, where he has reasonable grounds for believing that otherwise the consequences specified in section 45(8) might arise (see section 45(11)). 37. It was the practice of the police in Northern Ireland at the relevant time to refuse to permit the questioning of interviewees at Castlereagh holding centre to be: 1. witnessed by the interviewee’s lawyer; 2. independently witnessed and verified by any independent person; or 3. to be recorded and verified by video- or audio-recording.
38. The relevant parts of Article 8 provide: “2. Every person accused of a criminal offence ... is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: ... (d) the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel.” 39. Article 93 provides: “An untried prisoner shall be entitled, as soon as he is imprisoned, to choose his legal representative, or shall be allowed to apply for free legal aid where such aid is available, and to receive visits from his legal adviser with a view to his defence and to prepare and hand to him, and to receive, confidential instructions. At his request he shall be given all necessary facilities for this purpose.
In particular, he shall be given the free assistance of an interpreter for all essential contacts with the administration and for his defence. Interviews between the prisoner and his legal adviser may be within sight but not within hearing, either direct or indirect, of a police or institution official.” 40. Article 3 § 2 (c) of this Agreement, currently ratified by twenty-two Contracting States provides in its relevant parts: “2. As regards persons under detention, the exercise of this right shall in particular imply that: ... (c) such persons shall have the right to correspond, and consult out of hearing of other persons, with a lawyer qualified to appear before the courts of the country where they are detained in regard to an application to the Court, or any proceedings resulting therefrom.”