Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention 4.5.1 The meaning of “reasonableness” The European Court has held that the “‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention, which is laid down in” article 5(1)(c) of the European Convention, and that the fact of “having a ‘reasonable suspicion’ presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence”; however, what “may be regarded as ‘reasonable’ will ... depend upon all the circumstances”.50 In connection with arrests and detention under criminal legislation enacted to deal with acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, the European Court has explained that “in view of the difficulties inherent in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist-type offences, ... the ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion justifying such arrests cannot always be judged according to the same standards as are applied in dealing with conventional crime. Nevertheless, the exigencies of dealing with terrorist crime cannot justify stretching the notion of ‘reasonableness’ to the point where the essence of the safeguard secured by Article 5 § 1 (c) is impaired... ”.51 Although “the Contracting States cannot be asked to establish the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest of a suspected terrorist by disclosing the confidential sources of supporting information or even facts which would be susceptible of indicating such sources of their identity”, the Court must nevertheless “be enabled to ascertain whether the essence of the safeguard afforded by Article 5 § 1 (c) has been secured”; this means that “the respondent Government have to furnish at least some facts or information capable of satisfying the Court that the arrested person was reasonably suspected of having committed the alleged offence”.52 The case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley In the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley, the European Court accepted that the applicants had been arrested and detained “on a bona fide suspicion” that they were terrorists. However, neither the fact that two of them had “previous convictions for acts of terrorism connected with the IRA”, nor the fact that they were all questioned during their detention “about specific terrorist acts” did more than “confirm that the arresting officers had a genuine suspicion that they had been involved in those acts”. It could not “satisfy an objective observer that the applicants may have committed these acts”; these elements alone were “insufficient to support the conclusion that there was ‘reasonable suspicion’”.53 Consequently, there was a breach of article 5(1).54 50 Eur. Court HR, Case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, Series A, No. 182, p. 16, para. 32; emphasis added. 51 Ibid., pp. 16-17, para. 32. 52 Ibid., pp. 17-18, para. 34. 53 Ibid., p. 18, para. 35; emphasis added. 54 Ibid., para. 36. 174 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers