Gerry Adams wins ruling that 1970s internment unlawful

Gerry Adams, the former President of Sinn Fein, has won a ruling from the UK Supreme Court that his internment in Northern Ireland in the 1970s was unlawful because it had not been authorised by the Secretary of State personally.

Five Justices agreed that Mr Adams was therefore entitled to have two convictions for attempting to escape from lawful custody quashed, overturning a ruling of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.

Mr Adams, who was detained in 1973 following an order under article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, was granted an extension of time to appeal his convictions following the release under the 30 year rule of a legal opinion to the Government in 1974 which suggested that it was necessary to the making of an order under article 4 that the Secretary of State should have considered the matter personally. However the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Burnett allowed his appeal in a judgment delivered by Lord Kerr. The principal question was whether the principle in Carltona v Commissioners of Works (1943) applied – that the duties imposed on ministers and the powers given to ministers are normally exercised under authority of the ministers by responsible officials of the department concerned.

Considering previous decisions, Lord Kerr agreed with the Court of Appeal that the seriousness of the consequences was a consideration to be taken into account. He doubted, without finding it necessary to decide, that there is a presumption that the Carltona principle should apply, suggesting that cases should instead proceed on a textual analysis of the framework of the legislation in question, the language of pertinent provisions in the legislation and the "importance of the subject matter".

In the order in question, the making of the order, under article 4(1), and its signing, under article 4(2), were separately provided for, and there was no obvious reason why that should be so if Carltona was intended to apply. Further, the order to be signed was that "of the Secretary of State", which indicated one that was personal to him or her.

He concluded, first, that even if a presumption existed that Parliament intended Carltona to apply, it is clearly displaced on the facts by the proper interpretation of article 4; secondly, the consideration that the power in question, to detain without trial and potentially for a limitless period, was a momentous one provided insight into Parliament’s intention which was that such a crucial decision should be made by the Secretary of State personally; thirdly, that there was no evidence that this would place an impossible burden on the Secretary of State.

Mr Adams has always denied being a member of the IRA.

Click here to access the judgment.