CASE OF R.E. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Phillips of Worth Matravers
5. The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland. 6. In 2006 a solicitor in Northern Ireland was arrested and charged with a number of offences, including inciting paramilitaries to murder and perverting the course of justice. The case arose out of the covert recording of his consultations with clients at Antrim police station. As a direct consequence of the criminal proceedings, solicitors in Northern Ireland became aware that their private consultations with detainees in police stations and prisons could be the subject of covert surveillance. Thereafter, solicitors attending detainees in police stations and prisons began to seek assurances from the police that their consultations would not be the subject of such surveillance. 7. When the police refused to give assurances, judicial review proceedings were initiated on the basis that there had been a breach of the common law right to legal and professional privilege, the statutory right to a private consultation with a lawyer, and Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. 8. In the case of Re C & Others [2007] NIQB 101A the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland found that, despite the express statutory right to private consultations, the covert surveillance of lawyer-client consultations was permitted by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”). However, RIPA provided for two principal surveillance schemes: intrusive surveillance and directed surveillance. At the time of the hearing, covert surveillance of legal consultations was being treated as directed surveillance, which was the least restrictive of the two schemes. The Divisional Court held that the fundamental right of a detained person to consult a legal adviser privately necessitated an enhanced authorisation scheme and that protections afforded by the directed as opposed to the intrusive surveillance scheme offered insufficient protection. If the surveillance of consultations between legal advisers and clients in police custody was to be lawful for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention, the safeguards for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance had to apply. 9. The applicants in these judicial review proceedings appealed against the court’s ruling that the surveillance was permitted by the domestic legislation. The appeal went to the House of Lords, where it was referred to as Re McE (Northern Ireland) [2009] UKHL 15. The House of Lords agreed with the Divisional Court that although the provisions of RIPA could override, inter alia, legal professional privilege, the higher level of authority necessary for an intrusive surveillance warrant was required rather than the directed surveillance warrants that had, until then, been issued. 10. As the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) had not appealed against the Divisional Court’s ruling that the use of the directed surveillance scheme had breached Article 8 of the Convention, the House of Lords criticised the Secretary of State for not having taken any steps to ensure that covert surveillance of legal consultations was not treated as directed surveillance. 11. Following the decision of the House of Lords in Re McE the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Extension of Authorisation Provisions: Legal Consultations) Order 2010 (“the 2010 Order”) was adopted and on 6 April 2010 a revised Covert Surveillance Code of Practice (“the Revised Code”) came into effect. Pursuant to the 2010 Order, directed surveillance of consultations between a detainee and his or her professional legal adviser, representative or medical practitioner in connection with legal proceedings was to be treated, for the purposes of RIPA, as intrusive surveillance. 12. On 15 March 2009 the applicant was arrested in connection with the murder of a Police Constable believed to have been killed by dissident Republicans. 13. When first arrested the applicant was assessed by the Forensic Medical Officer as a “vulnerable person” within the meaning of the Terrorism Act Code of Practice. Pursuant to paragraph 11.9 of that Code of Practice, he could not be interviewed, save in exceptional circumstances, in the absence of an “appropriate adult”. In the case of a person who was mentally vulnerable, an appropriate adult could be a relative or guardian, or a person experienced in dealing with mentally disordered or mentally vulnerable people. However, prior to being seen by either a solicitor or an appropriate adult, the applicant asked to speak to the officers in charge of the investigation “off the record”. He was interviewed by police officers in the absence of a solicitor or an appropriate adult and during the course of that interview he gave information which led to the recovery of the gun used in the Constable’s murder. 14. The applicant was detained in custody for twelve days. During this time he was twice seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist and on each occasion he was assessed as being vulnerable and requiring the presence of an appropriate adult. Also during this time his solicitor obtained an assurance from the PSNI that his consultations with the applicant would not be subject to covert surveillance. 15. On 25 March 2009 the applicant was charged with withholding information about the Constable’s murder. 16. Following the charge the applicant was detained in custody on the ground that if released he would be at risk of harm from dissident Republicans. 17. The applicant was released on bail on 8 June 2009. He was arrested and questioned on a further occasion in October 2009 but was subsequently released without charge. 18. On 4 May 2010 the applicant was arrested for a third time in connection with the Constable’s murder. Following his arrest his solicitor again sought an assurance from the PSNI that his consultations would not be subjected to covert surveillance. The PSNI informed him that “[they could] neither confirm nor deny whether any form of covert surveillance has been conducted in any instance. Covert surveillance is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, related statutory instruments and the Revised [Covert Surveillance] Code of Practice”. 19. The applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the PSNI’s refusal to give an undertaking that his consultations with his solicitor would not be subjected to covert surveillance. In particular, he alleged that the grounds upon which the authorisation of such surveillance would be appropriate were not sufficiently clearly defined and that the guidance concerning the securing and destruction of legally privileged confidential information was not sufficiently clear or precise. 20. On 6 May 2010 he was granted permission to apply for judicial review. In granting permission, the court directed that any subsequent consultations with his solicitor and his medical adviser should not be subject to covert surveillance. 21. On 7 May 2010 the applicant had his first consultation with a Consultant Psychiatrist. 22. The applicant was released without charge on 8 May 2010. 23. The charge of withholding evidence appears to have concluded without trial. 24. The hearing of the judicial review application took place before a Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland on 28 June 2010. On 21 September 2010 the Divisional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. 25. In dismissing the claim, the court relied on Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010, which found that the regime under Part I of RIPA was compatible with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. Although it noted that Kennedy was concerned only with Part I of RIPA, the court considered that the reasoning expressed was “very relevant in view of the parallels between Part I and Part II of the surveillance legal regimes”. 26. The court found, in particular, that reading RIPA, the 2010 Order and the Revised Code together it was clear that a surveillance operation could only properly be justified if it was a truly proportionate response to a real risk posed by the individual who was the subject of the surveillance, and if the potential usefulness of the surveillance was demonstrably shown. As the Court had indicated in Kennedy, the requirement of foreseeability did not require an exhaustive definition of all conduct that might justify a decision on, for example, national security grounds, and similar reasoning applied in the present case. Consequently, the court held that the wording in the Revised Code was sufficiently clear. 27. With regard to the applicant’s second allegation, the court accepted that the statutory provisions under Part I of RIPA, which had been considered by the Court in Kennedy, were more detailed, prescriptive and precise than those in Part II. However, taking together the 2010 Order, the Revised Code and the PSNI Service Procedure Implementing Code, the arrangements in place for the use, retention and destruction of retained material in the context of legal consultations was compliant with the Article 8 rights of persons in custody. Moreover, as the Revised Code made it clear that material subject to legal professional privilege was not admissible in court and should be safeguarded by the taking of steps to ensure that it did not prejudice any criminal or civil proceedings, a breach of Article 6 of the Convention would not occur. While there was a risk of a potential “chill factor” (insofar as clients might be less than frank with their solicitors if they were concerned that they were under covert surveillance), the court considered that the revised Code was sufficiently detailed and precise to reassure those in custody that, save in exceptional circumstances, their consultations with lawyers would be in private. 28. Finally, the court observed that the special considerations which applied to consultations with lawyers or doctors did not apply in the case of meetings with an appropriate adult. It therefore followed that surveillance of such meetings could be authorised as directed surveillance rather than intrusive surveillance. 29. On 9 November 2010 the Divisional Court heard an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave to appeal was refused although the court certified four questions of law of general public importance. These were as follows: “a. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and (i) his/her solicitor (ii) his/her medical practitioner and/or (iii) an appropriate adult violate Article 6 ECHR in as much as they permit the covert surveillance of legally privileged consultations and the retention of material deriving from legally privileged consultations? b. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and (i) his/her solicitor (ii) his/her medical practitioner and/or (iii) an appropriate adult violate Article 8 ECHR as a result of:- (i) a lack of precision and clarity in the guidance governing the authorisation of such surveillance; and/or (ii) inadequate guidance as to how and when legally privileged material obtained from such surveillance should be handled, stored, used and destroyed. c. Is the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s Service Procedure “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 ECHR? d. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and an appropriate adult violate Article 8 ECHR because such surveillance can be authorised as directed rather than intrusive surveillance?” 30. An application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by the Supreme Court on 11 April 2011.