1. This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions for judicial review of a decision made on 28 April 2000 by Robert Alcorn RM whereby he ruled that Robert Shaw, a defendant in criminal proceedings, had not been lawfully remanded in custody on Sunday 23 April 2000.

2. Mr Shaw was charged on 22 April 2000 with the offences of threatening to kill and intimidation. It was not possible to hold a special court on that day. He was therefore brought before a Justice of the Peace on the following day, Easter Sunday. The Justice of the Peace ordered that he be remanded in custody to appear before Larne Magistrates' Court on 28 April.

3. When Mr Shaw appeared before Mr Alcorn at Larne Magistrates' Court on 28 April 2000, his solicitor submitted that the remand in custody on 22 April 2000 was in breach of Article 47(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) 1989 because that provision did not permit the bringing of a defendant before a magistrates' court on a Sunday. The Resident Magistrate ruled that the remand of the defendant on a Sunday was in breach of Article 47(4) of PACE. He ordered that Mr Shaw be released.

4. Article 47(2) of the 1989 Order deals with the situation where an accused person is charged in the same petty sessions district as the court before which he is to be brought. It provides that the accused should be brought before the court as soon as possible but, "in any event, not later than the day next following the day on which he is to be charged with the offence".

5. Article 47(3) provides that where an accused is charged in a district other than that where he is to be brought before a magistrates' court, he must be brought before a court "as soon as practicable after he is charged". It also sets an outer limit for the time by which he must be brought before such a court: "not later than the day next following the day of his arrival in that district".

6. Article 47(4) provides :-

7. The predecessor of this provision is Section 131 of the Magistrates Courts (Northern Ireland) 1981. It provides :-

8. It is clear from these provisions that one of the objectives of the 1989 Order was to restrict to a reasonable minimum the length of time that an arrested person spends in custody before being brought before a court. Article 47(4) must be interpreted against that general background.

9. In England and Wales the equivalent provision to Article 47(4) is section 46(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It provides :-

10. This provision was considered by Bingham LJ in R v Avon Courts Committee ex parte Broome [1988] 1 WLR 1246. He stated that it was the overriding duty of the police to bring a person charged with an offence before a court as soon as was practicable.

11. On behalf of the Director, Mr Maguire submitted that there was nothing in the 1989 Order and Article 47(4) in particular which forbade the bringing of a person charged before a court on a Sunday. The purpose of Article 47(4) was to set an outer limit by which the person charged must be brought before a court. It should be interpreted as permitting a court to sit on a Sunday, where that was practicable.

12. On behalf of Mr Shaw, Mr Larkin submitted that the language of Article 47(4) clearly prohibited the holding of a court on Sunday. He drew a contrast between the terms of the English provision and that in Northern Ireland. While the former could be interpreted as permitting the bringing of an accused person before a court on Sunday, the latter did not. It must be presumed, he argued, that the difference in the two provisions was deliberate. He suggested that the 1989 Order was drafted in order to reflect the greater respect accorded by the community in this jurisdiction to the days specified in Article 47(4).

13. It is a clear principle of statutory interpretation that individual provisions in a statute should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the overall purpose of the legislation. Part V of the 1989 Order (in which Article 47 is contained) deals with conditions and duration of detention. The general purpose of this Part can readily be deduced from the various Articles which comprise Part V. Article 35(1) provides that a person arrested for an offence shall not be kept in police detention except in accordance with the provisions contained in Part V. Article 35(2) requires a custody officer to order the immediate release from detention of a person as soon as the grounds for his detention have ceased to apply. Article 38 makes provision for a custody officer to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a detained person; if there is not sufficient evidence to charge, the detained person must be released unless the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that his detention is necessary to secure or preserve evidence. Under Article 39 an arrested person who has been charged must be released on bail unless certain conditions apply. Article 41 prescribes a system of periodic review of the justification for the continued detention of an arrested person. Article 42 places limits on the detention of persons without charge. Articles 43 to 45 prescribe rules for the authorisation of continued detention.

14. In our view the general purpose of Part V can be discerned from these provisions and from Article 47 itself. It is to provide safeguards for persons in relation to the circumstances and conditions in which they may be detained and to keep to a justified minimum the period of detention. It would be quite inconsistent with that purpose to prohibit the bringing to court of persons on Sundays where that could be conveniently arranged. If Article 47(4) had the effect suggested by Mr Larkin, it would follow that if Christmas Day fell on a Monday, a person charged on the Saturday before could not be brought before the court until Tuesday. This could not have been the intention of the legislature.

15. We are satisfied that the text of Article 47(4) permits the interpretation contended for by the applicant and that such interpretation is consistent with the general purpose of Part V of the 1989 Order. It is also in accord with Article 5.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides :-

16. We have concluded that the remand of Mr Shaw on 22 April 2000 was lawful. We will therefore make a declaration that the decision of the Resident Magistrate was wrong in law. If necessary, we will hear counsel on any further or consequent relief that may be required.