McAreavy, Re Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 62 (9 May 2014)

McAreavy, Re Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 62 (9 May 2014)

The failure to re-consult on the fundamental change to the Code of Practice, specifically the removal of the requirement to provide contemporaneous written records where possible, was unlawful. The change was fundamental and consultees were deprived of the opportunity to comment on a key safeguard, rendering the process unfair and in breach of consultation requirements.

Citation
[2014] NIQB 62
Parties
Applicant: Emmet McAreavy; First Respondent: Police Service of Northern Ireland; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
09 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Relief to be determined; court found failure to re-consult on fundamental changes to the Code of Practice was unlawful.
Legal Topics
Stop and Search, Code of Practice, Consultation Requirements, Article 8 ECHR, Justice and Security (northern Ireland) Act 2007
Public Law Human Rights Law Police Powers Stop and Search Code of Practice Consultation Requirements Article 8 ECHR Justice and Security (northern Ireland) Act 2007

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmet McAreavy

Applicant

Police Service of Northern Ireland

First Respondent

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to provide immediate written evidence of stop and search breaches Article 8 ECHR and statutory requirements
  2. 2 Whether the consultation process on the Code of Practice under JSA 2007 was adequate
  3. 3 Whether changes to the Code of Practice required further consultation

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to re-consult on the fundamental change to the Code of Practice, specifically the removal of the requirement to provide contemporaneous written records where possible, was unlawful. The change was fundamental and consultees were deprived of the opportunity to comment on a key safeguard, rendering the process unfair and in breach of consultation requirements.

Court Disposition

Relief to be determined; court found failure to re-consult on fundamental changes to the Code of Practice was unlawful.