Alexander (Silvana), Bull (Clive), Farrelly (Eamonn) and Fox (Damien) Application's
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Kerr LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] NIQB 20 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 05 March 2009 |
| Year | 2009 |
1
Neutral Citation No.: [2009] NIQB 20 Ref:
KER7437
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
05/03/2009
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
__________
Alexander (Silvana), Bull (Clive), Farrelly (Eamonn) and Fox (Damien)
Application’s [2009] NIQB 20
AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY SILVANA ALEXANDER,
CLIVE BULL, EAMONN FARRELLY and DAMIEN FOX
__________
Before Kerr LCJ, Higgins LJ and Girvan LJ
__________
KERR LCJ
Introduction
[1] These applications have some common issues and were heard together.
Each of the applicants claims that he or she was wrongfully arrested. It is
asserted that the arresting police officers either failed to consider whether it
was necessary to arrest (as is now required by article 26 (4) of the Police and
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, as amended by the Police
and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007) or
concluded that the arrests were necessary on grounds that were insufficient or
unsustainable. It is also claimed that the authorisation of the applicants’
detention by custody officers was wrong in law.
[2] The respondent, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, resists each of the
applications, arguing that the decisions to arrest were properly taken on
sufficient grounds. It also argues that all of the applications should be
dismissed on the ground that, if the arrests were unlawful, all the applicants
enjoy a perfectly adequate remedy in the form of an action for wrongful arrest
and unlawful imprisonment.
General background
[3] Before the 2007 Order introduced a new article 26 to the PACE Order 1989,
offences were classified as arrestable and non-arrestable. With the enactment
2
of the new provision this classification ceased to exist for all practical
purposes and the concept of an arrestable offence was abolished. A constable
now has the power to arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he has
reasonable grounds for suspecting to be, about to commit, or in the act of
committing, an offence. Where an offence has been committed, or the
constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been
committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone who is or whom he has
reasonable grounds for suspecting to be, guilty of that offence. All offences,
therefore, are now arrestable without warrant, subject to the requirement that
the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the
arrest is necessary for any of the reasons specified in article 26 (5).
[4] The relevant provisions in article 26 are these: -
“26. — (1) A constable may arrest without a
warrant—
(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(b) anyone who is in the act of committing an
offence;
(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds
for suspecting to be about to commit an
offence;
(d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds
for suspecting to be committing an offence.
(2) If a constable has reasonable grounds for
suspecting that an offence has been committed, he
may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he
has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty
of it.
(3) If an offence has been committed, a constable
may arrest without a warrant—
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds
for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(4) But the power of summary arrest conferred by
paragraph (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the
constable has reasonable grounds for believing
To continue reading
Request your trial
22 cases
-
JR 27’s Application (No 1)
...made to the Court is ancillary or incidental to that substantive process.” Notably, in the later decision of Re Alexander’s Application [2009] NIQB 20, which involved consideration of the legality of the arrest and detention of the Applicants under PACE, the Divisional Court quoted the JR14......
-
ABC v Derbyshire County Council
...of arrest to the rigour of a public law reasons challenge, which is not appropriate: Hayes at [32]–[34], citing Alexander and others [2009] NIQB 20 at 381 Under PACE, s.37(3): “If the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person's detention without being charged is n......
-
CF v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...that a state of affairs legally exists" citing words of Kerr L.C.J. in paragraph 14 of his judgment in Northern Ireland in Re Alexander [2009] NIQB 20. But that observation does not mean that the existence of the state of affairs must be established to any particular standard. It is entirel......
-
Scott Hayes (Claimant/ Appellant) v The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
...calls simply for honest actual belief, objectively justified as reasonable on the facts known to the officer. 31 In Alexander and others [2009] NIQB 20 the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland considered four applications for judicial review in which the applic......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Preventing The Unnecessary Arrest Of Your Client
...meaning of "the practical and sensible option" (as per Lord Chief Justice Kerr in Alexander and others: Applications for Judicial Review [2009] NIQB 20) may be useful in some circumstances but that this should not be adopted instead of the statutory The High Court found that the arrest of t......
2 books & journal articles
-
Legal Commentary- Penality and Proportionality in Response to Less Serious Youthful Offending in School and Elsewhere: An Anglo-American Comparative Exercise
...(paragraph 2.8). The ‘necessity’ test has not to date been the subject of extensive judicial scrutiny but in Re Alexander and Others [2009] NIQB 20 the High Court in Northern Ireland, interpreting parallel provi-sions applicable in that jurisdiction, did not consider that arrest need be ‘a ......
-
Policy, Practicalities, and PACE s. 24: The Subsuming of the Necessity Criteria in Arrest Decision Making by Frontline Police Officers
...and the arrest was necessary.23 Austin, op. cit., n. 6, p. 471.24 id., p. 464.25 Re Alexander's Application for Judicial Review [2009] N.I.Q.B. 20, Sir Brian KerrLCJ, para. 19.26 Hayes, op. cit., n. 7, para. 32.27 id., para. 26.28 id., para. 42.29 PACE Code G Note 2.C.ß2018 The Author. Jour......