Uniforms and Proscribed Organisations: Does a Proscribed Organisation Need to be Named in a s 13 Charge?: Barr v Public Prosecution Service [2020] NICA 46

Date01 April 2021
Published date01 April 2021
DOI10.1177/0022018321994346
Subject MatterCase Notes
Case Note
Uniforms and Proscribed
Organisations: Does a Proscribed
Organisation Need to be Named
in a s 13 Charge?
Barr v Public Prosecution Service [2020] NICA 46
Keywords
Uniforms, proscribed organisations, charge, failure to specify proscribed organisation,
defective
The appellant was one of a number of persons who attended a funeral in Strabane, Northern Ireland. The
Irish flag was draped over the hearse which was flanked by five persons on either side. The 10 persons
were all dressed in clothing which the police later described as green camouflage jackets, green scarves,
green combat trousers, green waist belts, black boots and gloves, black beret hats and sunglasses. Two
other persons were also present. One walked in front of the hearse while the other directed the 11 men.
The individuals marched in military formation and performed military manoeuvres. It had been the
prosecution’s contention that this was a colour party.
One of the police officers at the scene recognised the appellant as being part of the colour party and
duly arrested him under s 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was subsequently tried for an offence
contrary to s 13 of the 2000 Act, that is, of wearing an item of clothing in such a way as to arouse
reasonable suspicion that he was a member of a proscribed organisation. At his trial it was submitted that
since the name of the proscribed organisation had not been specified in the charge, it was therefore
defective and ought to be dismissed.
Having reviewed the evidence, the Deputy District Judge was clear that what had taken place was a
republican funeral. It was noted that during an interview under caution, the appellant had been asked
whether he was a member of the IRA or the New IRA and that he had denied being a member of any
illegal organisation. He had also exercised his right to silence when questioned about video footage
relating to the funeral. In the judgment of the Deputy District Judge, an objectively reasonable person
observing the appellant dressed as he was at the funeral would suspect that he was a member or supporter
of a proscribed organisation, that is, a republican paramilitary group. Accordingly, although the New
IRA was not specifically identified on the face of the summons, it was clear from the prosecution papers
and the interview under cautio n that it was the paramilitary g roup in question. The appellan t was
therefore convicted of the s 13 offence.
The following point of law was certified for the opinion of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal:
Was I correct in law in convicting the Defendant of wearing an item of clothing in such a way or in such
circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he was a member or supporter of a proscribed organisa-
tion, contrary to section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, when the charge as preferred against the Defendant did
not specify any proscribed organisation?
The Journal of Criminal Law
2021, Vol. 85(2) 165–168
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018321994346
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT