NEW security powers to stop and search anyone close to the border do not breach a former republican prisoner’s rights to free movement, a High Court judge ruled on Tuesday.
Mr Justice Scoffield rejected claims by Kevin Barry Nolan that regulations establishing a mile-wide regime along the frontier with the Republic violate his private and family life entitlements.
The 45-year-old Co Fermanagh man challenged sections of the Counter Terrorism Border Security Act 2019 aimed at protecting against serious crime, espionage or activity which threatens the UK’s national security.
Examining officers can stop, question and search anyone in Northern Ireland within a one-mile zone near the border to determine if they are engaged in “hostile activity”.
Nolan, a Registered Terrorist Offender (RTO), was jailed in 2014 for six years on firearms charges related to an attempted attack on a trainee policeman’s home.
The plot, centred on the officer’s accommodation in Garrison, Co Fermanagh, was foiled in 2009.
Since his release on licence Nolan has lived close to the border in the village of Belcoo, but regularly travels across into counties Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal for social occasions and to run errands.
He is already required to notify police of any intended trips to the Republic due to his RTO status.
In legal action taken against the Home Office, Nolan claimed the newly introduced provisions breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the post-Brexit Windsor Framework.
His lawyers branded them “intrusive, chilling and draconian” powers which epitomise a hard border with the Republic.
The court was told that the regulations do not just affect terrorist offenders, but impact on everybody living or travelling within that zone.
Counsel for the Home Office insisted there was no evidence of any actual enforcement of the alleged intrusive measures.
She also highlighted safeguards and multiple restrictions on the use of powers which could help prevent any spies or hostile “foreign actors” using the Republic of Ireland as a route into the United Kingdom.
Ruling on the case, Mr Justice Scoffield pointed out that Nolan has at no stage been stopped, questioned or detained under the new provisions.
“The applicant’s Article 8 rights have not been interfered with; nor is there any indication that he is likely to be the subject of the exercise of (the) powers, either imminently or otherwise,” he judge said.
He also identified nothing unlawful about the regulations, finding that there was no denial of rights to enter or exit the UK.
“They simply provide the authorities with additional powers of stop and search at port or border areas,” Mr Justice Scoffield held.
“Although a stopped or detained individual’s travel plans may be disrupted, the impugned provisions do not themselves in any way affect travel or immigration rights.”
He concluded that the provisions merely grant investigative powers similar to those at international ports and other border points within the European Union.
Dismissing Nolan’s application for leave to seek a judicial review, the judge stated: “The real impact on the applicant in terms of cross-border travel is a result of his prior offending, subjecting him to the travel notification requirements.
“There is no indication that the border security powers challenged in these proceedings have had, or will have, any material impact upon the applicant.”