FIFTY years on from the introduction of internment without trial, a group of former internees have commenced Judicial Review High Court proceedings against the Secretary of State for NI and the Public Records Office concerning the release of their internment records from 1971 onwards.
The Judicial Review challenges the decisions of the Public Records Office (PRONI) and Secretary of State for NI to continue to withhold records relevant to their detention in contravention of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Internment was last introduced on 9 August 1971, when the British Army arrested over 340 people in violent dawn raids across the North in an operation codenamed Operation Demetrius, now widely discredited as having relied on flawed and dated intelligence. Many of those interned were subjected to serious violence, and some to techniques now recognised as torture. Internment only ended in December 1975.
The legality of internment of persons under both the 1922 Act and the 1972 Order was brought into focus by official papers released under the 30-year rule. These papers demonstrated the existence of a discriminatory policy against Catholics and the indiscriminate policy of arrest by the Army.
Further details concerning the lawfulness of internment was brought to light in a Supreme Court Case brought by former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams. This case, which had judgement delivered in May 2020, focused on the lawfulness of certain Interim Custody Orders not considered by the Secretary of State as per the Detention of Terrorists Order (DTO) 1972.
The DTO created what was known as Interim Custody Orders and under Article 4 the Secretary of State was required to personally consider each ICO to determine if it was necessary to detain the individual concerned.
As the ICO was used to detain someone without trial, it was required to be considered and approved at the highest level and was a power exclusively vested in the Secretary of State. An ICO allowed for detention for up to 28 days of persons “suspected” of involvement in terrorism.
If referred by the Chief Constable to a commissioner in any case this period could be extended pending a determination by the commissioner. In the Adams Supreme court case it was determined that if an ICO was not considered by the Secretary of State, then the subsequent period of detention could not be deemed to be lawful. This gave further strength to legal cases brought by former Internee’s whose ICO’s may also been ignored by the Secretary of State.
Internment records are currently held in the Public Records Office in Belfast. Whilst requests can be made by former internees for the records held by PRONI, relevant to their period of internment, the Records Office must first consult with third parties or “consultees” to determine if there is any objection to the release of all or part of the requested records.
As the NIO were responsible for authorising the periods of internment, PRONI must first seek their authority to release the relevant records. The SOS and PRONI are still bound by the Data Protection Act 2018 and the time limits which this legislation places on compliance of Public Bodies in dealing with requests for information.
In the absence of the release of papers many former Internee’s are unsure if their ICO’s are compliant or not. Moreover, many who seek their papers to determine whether there was even any justification for their detention have been left in the dark for 50 years.
Commenting on the case, Eoin Murphy of Ó Muirigh Solicitors stated: “Our client’s requests for their papers have been outstanding for a number of years with requests originally having been made in 2013.
"The papers requested relate only to their own internment without trial and as such they are clearly entitled to them. PRONI alongside the Secretary of State are plainly in contravention of the time limits allowed for the production of documents.
"In light of the Adams case, these records have become all the more important as they may reveal if our clients were unlawfully detained on foot of invalid ICO’s and entitled to compensation from the Secretary of State.
"It is my view that the Secretary of State is deliberately delaying the release of the records. The court will be asked to intervene given our clients right to an effective and expedient remedy.”
