The Gazette 1993

VOL. 87 NO. 2

JULY/AUGUST 1993

Judge Brian Walsh. Prolonged and sustained

interrogation . . .could well fall into the category

of inhuman or degrading treatment. . .

Article 5.3 of the European Convention

of Human Rights relates to the bringing

of an arrested or detained person

promptly before a judge or other officer

authorised by law to exercise judicial

power. Article 15 relates to a derogation

from obligations of the Convention in

time of war or other public emergency

threatening the life of the nation.

The Court considered that the national

authorities were, in principle, in a better

position than the international judge to

decide on the presence of an emergency

and on the nature and scope of derogat-

ions necessary to avert it. Accordingly,

in that matter, a wide margin of appreci-

ation should be left to the national auth-

orities. The Court (by a majority) con-

sidered that there could be no doubt that

such an emergency existed at the

relevant time.

Mr. McBride had been arrested in

January, 1989 under the

Prevention of

Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act,

1984

and removed to Castlereagh

Interrogation Centre. He had been

detained for a total period of 4 days, 6

hours and 25 minutes'. Mr. Brannigan

had been brought to the Interrogation

Centre at Gough Barracks, Armagh, and

was detained for a total period of 6

days, 14 hours and 30 minutes.

Judge Walsh, in his dissenting

judgement, stated that article 5.3 of the

Convention was an essential safeguard

against arbitrary executive arrest or

detention, which the failure to observe

could easily give rise to complaints

under article 3 of the Convention, which

cannot be the subject of derogation.

Prolonged and sustained interrogation

over periods of days, particularly

without a judicial intervention, could

well fall into the category of inhuman or

degrading treatment in particular cases.

Judge Walsh noted that the Govern-

ment's plea thai it was motivated by a

wish to preserve public confidence in

the independence of the judiciary was,

in effect, to say that such confidence

was to be maintained or achieved by not

permitting them to have a role in the

protection of the personal liberty of the

arrested persons. The Judge noted that

one would think that such a role was

one which the public would expect the

judges to have. He also noted that

neither the UK Parliament nor the UK

Government appears to have made any

serious effort to rearrange the judicial

procedure or jurisdiction, in spite of

being advised to do so by the persons

appointed to review the system to cater

for the requirement of article 5.3 in

cases of the type now under review.

Judge Walsh considered that the UK

Government had not convincingly

shown, in a situation where the courts

operate normally, why an arrested

person could not be treated in accord-

ance with article 5.3. He noted that the

fact that out of 1,549 persons arrested in

1990, only 30 were subsequently

charged. This indicated a paucity of

proof rather than any deficiency in the

operation of the judicial function. He

stated it should not be beyond the ability

of Parliament to legislate for a situation

where the arrested person could be

brought before a judge with liberty to

grant an adjournment for up to a period

of 5 or 7 days before the expiration of

which the arrested person must be

released or charged, where the arresting

officer was prepared to swear that he had

reasonable grounds for suspecting that

the arrested person had been involved in

or engaged in "acts of terrorism" within

the meaning of the relevant legislation.

Judge Walsh considered there had been

a breach of article 5.3 of the Convention

in respect of the detention of each of the

applicants, and that there had been a

breach of article 13 of the Convention,

which requires that an effective remedy

must be available before a national

authority for everyone whose rights and

freedoms as set forth in the Convention

are violated.

Mr. McBride was later shot dead on

February 4, 1992 by a policeman who

ran amok and attacked Sinn Fein

headquarters in Belfast.

The Solicitors' League

Table

John Pritchard,

a solicitor, and author

of many books on the law including

The

Legal 500

has produced the 1993

edition of

Law Firms in Europe.

This

hook is full of information including

editorial comment based on the

combined opinions of many lawyers

interviewed in each jurisdiction. John

Pritchard admits that the editorial is

therefore a subjective view based on

systematic research.

In relation to Ireland, the book states

that the average hourly rate for a partner

is around £150. The big five firms

dominate with expected gains for the

middle tier firms not materialising.

The league table in terms of numbers of

lawyers employed in firms in Ireland is

set out in Mr. Pritchard's book as follows:

The Largest Firms

Firms

1. A & L Goodbody

Number

of Lawyers*

2. Arthur Cox

3. McCann FitzGerald

4. Matheson Ormsby Prentice

5. William Fry

6. Mason Hayes & Curran

7. Gerrard, Scallan & O'Brien

8. O'Flynn Exhams & Partners

9. Whitney, Moore & Keller

10. Eugene F. Collins

11. Murray Sweeney

12. Rory O'Donnell & Co

13. Dillon Eustace

14. Holmes O'Malley Sexton

15. JG O'Connor & Co

16. Ronan Daly Jermyn

17. Binchys

18. GJ Moloney & Co

19. Kenny Stephenson & Chapman

20. Reddy Charlton & McKnight

Law Firms in Europe

is published by

Legalease, 28/30 Cato Street, London,

WIH 5HS, UK.

*These numbers are as of date of publi-

cation of the book. It must be stressed

that many of these figures will have

changed and that they are only a rough

guide and should be treated by readers

as such.

212