McGrath v Chief Constable of The Royal Ulster Constabulary AN Another (Northern Ireland)

The central legal question was the construction of section 38(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (then in force) and whether a constable in Northern Ireland lawfully executed a Scottish warrant which, through a deception by a third party, named and described an innocent person. The House held that section 38(3) authorises execution in Northern Ireland of a warrant issued in Scotland "for the arrest of a person charged with an offence" and that those words describe the kind of warrant rather than restrict execution to the person who in fact was the true person charged. The court concluded that where a valid warrant exists on its face, and is executed by a constable acting in good faith in accordance with it, the execution is lawful unless the warrant has been recalled or shown to be null and void. The decision distinguished cases based on mistakes of law or defective procedural formalities and emphasised the distinction between judicial acts (granting a warrant) and ministerial acts (endorsing and executing it).

Background and facts:

• The plaintiff was arrested in Belfast under a warrant issued by a Scottish sheriff which named him and described his date of birth and address, although that warrant had in fact been intended for another man who had given the plaintiff's details to the Scottish court. The person who had stood before the sheriff had deliberately given the plaintiff's name and details. The plaintiff was taken to Scotland and released when the mistake was discovered.

Procedural history:

• At first instance MacDermott LJ gave judgment for the defendants (the Chief Constables).
• The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland [2000] NI 56 allowed the plaintiff's appeal and awarded damages for wrongful arrest.
• The Chief Constables appealed to the House of Lords.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The plaintiff sought damages in tort for wrongful arrest/false imprisonment arising from his arrest in Northern Ireland under the Scottish warrant.

Issues framed by the court:

• How should the phrase "a person charged with an offence" in section 38(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 be construed?
• Does a constable executing a warrant in good faith in Northern Ireland have protection where the person named in a valid warrant is in fact not the person who was before the issuing court?

Court's reasoning:

• The House began from the premise that the warrant was validly issued in Scotland and that judicial acts remain valid until recalled. It relied on the distinction between judicial acts (granting a warrant) and ministerial acts (execution and endorsement) and on authority emphasising that an officer executing a warrant is entitled to rely on the face of the warrant.
• The court preferred a construction that the words in section 38(3) describe the type of warrant (a warrant of arrest) rather than requiring that the person arrested be the identical person who in fact had been charged in the issuing court. Alternatively, the court held that even if the words required that the arrested person be 'charged', the plaintiff was, albeit mistakenly, charged since the indictment and schedule of convictions had been prepared in his name.
• The House recognised competing considerations (the hardship to an innocent arrested person and traditional common law warnings about precision in warrants) but concluded that penalising officers who act reasonably and in good faith would be improper where the statute plainly enables enforcement across jurisdictions.

Wider context: The Lords noted the need for strict controls in the granting and execution of warrants and emphasised safeguards where personal liberty is engaged; they also distinguished mistakes of law and procedural failings from mistakes of identity that arise through deception by a third party.

Appeal allowed. The House held that section 38(3) should be construed as permitting execution in Northern Ireland of a warrant issued in Scotland that is, on its face, a warrant of arrest. Where a warrant validly issued and properly describes the person to be arrested on its face, a constable executing it in good faith acts lawfully; alternatively, the court accepted that the plaintiff was, albeit mistakenly, the person charged in the indictment and so fell within the subsection. Accordingly the Court of Appeal was wrong to find the arrest unlawful.

First instance: MacDermott LJ (trial) — judgment for the defendants. Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) [2000] NI 56 — allowed the plaintiff's appeal and awarded damages. House of Lords, appeal allowed ([2001] UKHL 39).