Ramsey’s (Steven) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy J |
| Judgment Date | 2014,08 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014]NIQB 59,[2014] NIQB 59 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 08 May 2014 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2014] NIQB 59 Ref: TRE9276
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 08/05/2014
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Ramsey’s (Steven) Application [2014] NIQB 59
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY STEVEN RAMSEY
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
TREACY J
Introduction
[1] This is an application for judicial review by Steven Ramsey in which he
challenges the legality of the powers in s24 and Sch 3 para 4(1) of the Justice and
Security Act (NI) 2007 (“the JSA”). The applicant contends that he has been
subjected to a series of stops and searches using these powers by the Police Service
of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”). He seeks a Declaration that s24 and para 4(1) of Sch 3
are incompatible with Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Primarily this is a policy challenge to the power principally on the basis that it fails
the quality of law test in that it is said there are insufficient safeguards against
arbitrariness to render the power compatible with the Convention.
Background
[2] The applicant’s long and documented history of repeated and significant use
of the powers of stop and search/stop and question against him were set out in his
affidavits and he states that although the searches prior to 15 May 2013 are not the
focus of this application they do provide relevant background.
[3] The applicant’s first affidavit notes that he was searched on 35 occasions in
2009, 37 occasions in 2010, 23 occasions in 2011 and 31 occasions in 2012. The
position in relation to the number of searches of the applicant from 1 January 2013 is
agreed between the parties. He was stopped on 26 occasions between 1 January and
21 June 2013 pursuant to s24/Sch 3. It was agreed that he was stopped on 4 further
occasions between that date and 3 August 2013.
2
[4] Because of the change to the law and the introduction of the Code of Practice
(following the Court of Appeal decision in Re Canning & Ors [2013] NICA 19) the
current application is focussed on the 7 searches between 15 May and 3 August 2013.
The details of these searches are set out in the applicant’s skeleton argument.
[5] The applicant submitted that the only information available as to why he was
stopped was from the officers involved in the searches. In relation to what these
officers said, as set out below, their names are referred to by the letters V, W, X, Y
and Z:
(a) Officer V (A, p38, para 4) “suspected dissident republican links”
(b) Officer W (A, p41, para 3) “As a result of confidential briefings”
(c) Officer X (A, p43, paras 3, 6, 9) “as a result of confidential briefings”
(“from Security Branch” – para 9)
(d) Officer Y (A, p47, para 2) “As a result of confidential briefings”
(e) Officer Z (A, p50, para 3) “I recognised him as being a person of
interest to police as a result of a confidential briefing”
Legislative Framework
[6] The applicant argued that the power at issue in this case is an amended
version of the power that was successfully challenged in the joined cases of
Re Canning, Fox & McNulty [2013] NICA 19 in which the Court of Appeal
concluded that, in the absence of a Code of Practice, the relevant power was not
sufficiently clear and precise to comply with Art 8 ECHR (at paras 45-50 and 58-59).
The Court said that the broad powers in sections 21 and 24 of the Act:
“…require justification and which provides effective
guarantees and safeguards against abuse. The relevant
law must be clear and precise and thus will require rules
to ensure that the power is not capable of being arbitrarily
exercised in circumstances which do not justify its
exercise.” at para [45]
[7] The amendment of the law by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the 2012
Act”) has changed the s24/Sch 3 power in the following ways:
(i) There is no longer a power for a constable to stop
and search for munitions etc. without reasonable
suspicion at any time.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
The Republic of Poland v Pawel Tumkiewicz
...This court set out its approach to the consideration of proportionality on appeal at paragraph 19 of The Republic of Poland v RP [2014] NIQB 59: “[19] An issue arose as to the approach of the court on appeal. This is an appeal under section 28 of the 2003 Act in which the appellant argued t......