R v Z, Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

LORD DIPLOCK WAS ASKED TO CONSIDER WHAT ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND COULD BE MADE TO DEAL MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS BY BRINGING TO ACCOUNT INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES. THE DIPLOCK REPORT ("REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER LEGAL PROCEDURES TO DEAL WITH TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN NORTHERN IRELAND" (CMND. 5185)) LED TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1973. SECTION 19 EMPOWERED THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROSCRIBE "ANY ORGANISATION THAT APPEARS TO HIM TO BE CONCERNED IN TERRORISM OR IN PROMOTING OR ENCOURAGING IT." THE 1973 ACT, WHICH APPLIED TO NORTHERN IRELAND, WAS FOLLOWED BY THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1974, WHICH APPLIED TO GREAT BRITAIN. THE POWER TO PROSCRIBE ORGANISATIONS WAS THEN RE-ENACTED IN SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION:
LORD LLOYD'S INQUIRY INTO LEGISLATION AGAINST TERRORISM, OCTOBER 1996 (CM. 3420 (1996)) AND THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSULTATION DOCUMENT, LEGISLATION AGAINST TERRORISM (CM. 4178). IT WAS INTENDED TO REFORM THE LAW RELATING TO TERRORIST CRIME.

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

R v. Z

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On 26 May 2004, during a criminal trial, Judge Girvan ruled that the Real Irish Republican Army (Real IRA) was not a proscribed organisation under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Consequently, several defendants charged with belonging to a proscribed organisation contrary to Section 11(1) of that Act were acquitted. The organisation named in the charges was the Real Irish Republican Army. Following this acquittal, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland referred a point of law to the Court of Appeal under Section 15 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, seeking the court's opinion on whether membership of or professing membership to the Real IRA constitutes an offence under Section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Legal Issues Presented

Does a person commit an offence contrary to Section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 by belonging or professing to belong to the Real Irish Republican Army?

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney General's Arguments

The term "Irish Republican Army" in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is a generic term encompassing all forms of the IRA, including the Real IRA.
Before the Sentences (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, the Real IRA was unquestionably proscribed; it is inconceivable Parliament intended otherwise after that Act.
The Real IRA should be considered the Irish Republican Army and thus proscribed under Section 3(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Alternatively, the Real IRA operates under the same name as the Irish Republican Army, satisfying Section 3(1)(b), as it incorporates the name of the listed organisation.
Excluding the Real IRA from proscription would render Section 108 of the Terrorism Act ineffective in relation to that organisation, contrary to Parliamentary intent.

Defendant's Arguments

The Real IRA is a distinct organisation from the Irish Republican Army listed in Schedule 2 and was not proscribed due to Executive oversight.
Proscription should be determined strictly by whether the organisation is listed in Schedule 2 or operates under the identical name of a listed organisation; the Real IRA is neither.
The Real IRA deliberately uses the prefix "Real" to distinguish itself from the Irish Republican Army and the government’s specification of the Real IRA separately under the Sentences legislation confirms this distinction.
The definition of "organisation" in Section 121 of the Terrorism Act 2000 includes associations of persons, and the Real IRA is a different association from that named in Schedule 2.
As a penal statute, Section 3(1)(b) must be construed strictly; "same" means precisely the same name, not similar or incorporating the name.
Including the Real IRA as a proscribed organisation under Section 3 and Schedule 2 would infringe Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the offence is not clearly defined.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Harrison v Lewis [1988] 2 FLR 339	Statutory interpretation requires considering the enactment as a whole and in context to ascertain Parliamentary intention.	Used to support the principle of interpreting the Terrorism Act 2000 in context, including the history of proscription.
Kingsbury v Martin (1901) 1 SR (NSW) 272	The word "same" can mean "identical" or "similar" depending on context.	Applied to construe "same name" in Section 3(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 as including similar names, not only identical ones.
DPP v Campbell (unreported, 19 December 2003)	Recognition that various IRA splinter groups, including the Real IRA, have similar structure, style, and philosophy to the original IRA for proscription purposes.	Considered but not determinative; court noted lack of evidence on structure and philosophy in present case but found legislative intention to proscribe Real IRA sufficient.
Kokkinakis v Greece (1993) 260-A, ECtHR	Article 7 ECHR requires criminal offences to be clearly defined in law to avoid retrospective or unclear criminal liability.	Referenced to assess whether proscription of the Real IRA under the Terrorism Act 2000 violated Article 7; court held no violation as offence was clearly defined.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining the historical context of proscription legislation in Northern Ireland, noting that the term "Irish Republican Army" has traditionally been used as an umbrella term to proscribe various factions of the IRA, including splinter groups. The court acknowledged the legislative intention behind the Terrorism Act 2000 was to continue this approach, encompassing all manifestations of the IRA, including the Real IRA.

The court disagreed with the trial judge's approach, which focused on the nature and activities of the Real IRA to determine proscription, holding instead that the key inquiry is whether the organisation is listed or operates under the same name as a listed organisation. The court interpreted "operates under the same name" broadly, meaning similar or incorporating the name, not requiring exact identity.

The court rejected the argument that the Real IRA was not proscribed due to its separate specification under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. It found that different treatment under that Act was for the purpose of accelerated release schemes and did not negate the legislative intention to proscribe all IRA manifestations under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Regarding Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court held that the offence of belonging to or professing to belong to the Real IRA was clearly defined in law, and no violation arose as any member would have been aware of their liability under the legislation.

The court also considered but did not decide on the relevance of the Irish case DPP v Campbell, noting the absence of evidence on the Real IRA’s structure and philosophy in the present case but reaffirming its conclusion based on legislative intent.

Holding and Implications

The court held that a person who belongs to or professes to belong to the Real Irish Republican Army commits an offence contrary to Section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

This decision confirms that the Real IRA is proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, either as part of the generic term "Irish Republican Army" or as an organisation operating under the same name. The ruling clarifies the interpretation of proscription provisions, emphasizing legislative intent and a broad construction of organisational names to include splinter groups. The decision directly affects the parties by affirming the validity of prosecutions for membership of the Real IRA but does not establish new legal precedent beyond the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.