• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The Unified Patents Court

LoupedIn

The Supreme Court considers the Carltona Principle does not apply where the clear wording of the statute implies otherwise

August 10, 2020, John Cooper, Kieran Laird and Ravi Randhawa

The Supreme Court considers the Carltona Principle does not apply where the clear wording of the statute implies otherwise

In R v Adams [2020] UKSC 19 the Supreme Court considered the legality of an order made under the Northern Ireland regime of detention without trial which was in place between 1922 and 1971 (known as ‘internment’). The last instrument authorising internment permitted a person to be taken into custody on the basis of an interim custody order (ICO) made by the Secretary of State where he considered that the person was involved in terrorism.

On 21 July 1973, an ICO was made in respect of the appellant, who had been a prominent political leader in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for many years and who had consistently denied being a member of any terrorist organisation. He tried to escape from detention three times and was convicted of attempting to escape from lawful custody.

The original ICO was signed by a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office. While it was permitted for an ICO to be signed by a Minister of State, the legislation was phrased in such a way as to require that the Secretary of State himself must suspect that the appellant had been involved in terrorism. However, there was no evidence that the Secretary of State had personally considered the issue and the appellant challenged the ICO on the basis that it was not sufficient that the Minister of State who signed the ICO suspected him of being involved in terrorism.

The Court considered whether the Carltona principle applied so as the legislation should be read as permitting the statutory power to be exercised by responsible officials in the relevant Government department on behalf of the Secretary of State. It was noted that, in contrast to other cases, due to the scale of internment, it would not have placed an unduly onerous burden on the Secretary of State to have personally considered whether each ICO should be made. A distinction was therefore made between this and other cases where it would be impracticable to require the Secretary of State to personally exercise a statutory power.

The Court noted obiter that it did not consider that there was a presumption in law that the Carltona principle should apply unless it was disapplied by express statutory language. However, it did not find it necessary to come to a view on this issue since it considered that the language of the statute was clear that the principle should not apply in this case.

The 1972 instrument stated that the Secretary of State must consider the matter and make the ICO. It went on to state that the ICO could be signed by the Secretary of State, Minister of State or Under Secretary of State. This indicated a clear distinction in roles which would not have been necessary had the Carltona principle been intended to apply. Further, the language that the ICO was that ‘of the Secretary of State’ was considered to clearly indicate that the ICO was personal to him or her and not a generic order that could be made by others.

Accordingly, the Court considered that the making of the ICO in respect of the appellant was invalid as the Secretary of State had not considered the matter personally. The appellant had been therefore been detained unlawfully. A consequence of this was that the appellant’s convictions for trying to escape internment were also quashed.

About the author(s)

Photo of Ravi Randhawa
Ravi Randhawa
Legal Director at Gowling WLG (UK) LLP |  See recent postsBlog biography

Ravi Randhawa assists clients to act within the parameters set by their governing statutory and regulatory frameworks, and where applicable the broader requirements of public administrative law, and to make decisions which are fully informed by and compliant with the legal framework within which they operate.

  • Ravi Randhawa
    https://loupedin.blog/author/ravirandhawa/
    Sustainability allies: pro bono support for KIND
  • Ravi Randhawa
    https://loupedin.blog/author/ravirandhawa/
    Court upholds refusal of badger culling licence
  • Ravi Randhawa
    https://loupedin.blog/author/ravirandhawa/
    Administrative Court finds the decision not to include gig workers in the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme lawful
  • Ravi Randhawa
    https://loupedin.blog/author/ravirandhawa/
    Court of Appeal confirms high threshold for injunctions preventing publication of Ofsted reports

Filed Under: Opinion, Public Law & Regulation Tagged With: Interim custody order, Northern Ireland, Public Law & Regulation, R v Adams, Republic of Ireland

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Sole(ly) aesthetic? The Birkenstock Sandal goes to the Federal Court of Justice
  • UK Litigation Funding: reform or retain?
  • Arbitration Act 2025 receives Royal Assent

Tags

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (62) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (19) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (15) Brexit (23) Climate change (16) Collective defined contribution (6) COP26 (11) Copyright (11) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (7) Data protection (8) Defined contribution (7) Dispute Resolution (14) Employment (14) employment law (11) Environment (18) Environmental Societal Governance (9) ESG (50) ESG and pensions (11) General Election 2024 and pensions (8) Intellectual Property (86) IP (10) Life sciences (7) litigation funding (8) net zero (6) Patents (40) Pensions (53) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (11) Pensions dashboards (7) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (43) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (27) Retail (8) sustainability (21) Tech (58) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (16) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (39) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2025 Gowling WLG