About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Finding that the procedure for issuing PINs did not require the PSNI to seek the views of the perpetrator, Justice Colton stated that the protester’s consistent response of denial and counterclaim suggested that little would have been gained from speaking to her in advance of issuing the PINs.

Background

The Court heard that the applicant, “BM1”, is a member of the “Precious Life” anti-choice group.

BM1participated in a number of “prayer vigil” protests near the Belfast Marie Stopes Clinic in 2014, which “resulted in heated interactions between the protesters and those working in or visiting the clinic”.

Ultimately, BM1 was issued with six Police Information Notices (“PINs”) by the PSNI.

A PIN was described as a non-statutory notice issued to prevent and detect crime in connection with the offence of harassment.

The issuance of BM1’s PINs were governed by PSNI Service Procedure SP1 2012 also known as “Police Response to Stalking and Harassment”.

In accordance with Service Procedure SP1 2012, each of the PINs in this case advised BM1 that a complaint had been received about her behaviour “to make aware that if the kind of behaviour were to continue then would be liable to arrest and prosecution”.

The PIN stated that it was neither a court order nor a criminal record but that it would be kept by the police for the purposes of any future investigations and retained in accordance with national guidelines on the management of police information.

High Court

BM1 challenged the decision by the PSNI to issue and serve the PINs on the following grounds:

BM1’s central argument was that before any of the PINs were issued she should have been given an opportunity to respond to the complaints made against her. BM1 claimed that this was a basic requirement of a full investigation.

Justice Colton rejected this, stating that Service Procedure SP1 2012 made no mention of seeking the views of the alleged perpetrator; and further, that the requirements to “fully investigate” an allegation of harassment did not relate to the pre-PIN phase of the investigation.

In relation to the policy issuing the PINs, Justice Colton was satisfied that the “contents of the statements of the complainants, together with the other evidential material obtained in the form of body camera material and CCTV material were sufficient to justify a consideration of the issue of PINs”.

Further, Justice Colton said the 2014 protests were “precisely the type of dispute” that PINs should be utilised “as a means of policing the ongoing interaction between the complainants”

It was clear that the PSNI acted impartially in the matter, as PINs were also issued based on BM1’s complaints. The PINs did not comment on the truth of allegations, and it is emphasised when issued that it is not a court order or a criminal record.

Considering the issue of BM1’s Article 8 rights, Justice Colton was satisfied that by retaining the PINs on its database the PSNI interfered with BM1’s Article 8 rights, but that it was proportionate to the objective of maintaining public order and preventing or detecting crime.

The policing need for the retention of the records given the ongoing nature of the complaints and counter-complaints by the applicant clearly justified the retention of the PINs for a period of time

Since all of the PINs were deactivated in 2015, and deleted on 11 February 2016, the period of time was not a breach of BM1’s rights.

In addition, in terms of the issue of retention, there was an adequate alternative remedy in the form of the powers granted to the Information Commissioner under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Refusing judicial review, Justice Colton was satisfied that the issue and service of the PINs were lawful, and that their retention did not breach BM1’s rights.