Dissident accused fail in bank accounts legal challenge

Damien McLaughlin, Sharon Jordan and Amanda Duffy claimed it was an invalid move taken as part of a major investigation into New IRA activities.

Lawyers for the trio argued that police failed to comply with a legal obligation to consult with HM Treasury before making applications for freezing orders.

But the Court of Appeal described the non-compliance as “modest rather than grave”.

Dismissing the challenge, Lord Justice McCloskey said: “There is an unmistakable public interest favouring the assessment that total invalidity should not be the consequence of non-observance of the statutory consultation requirement which is under scrutiny in this fact sensitive case.”

McLaughlin, 46, Jordan, 47, and 51-year-old Duffy, also known as Amanda McCabe, are all currently in custody accused of terrorist offences linked to the joint police and MI5 Operation Arbacia.

They are among 10 people to be charged in the surveillance-led offensive targeting the New IRA.

The probe involved bugging two suspected meetings in Co Tyrone last year.

In May last year freezing orders for 20 bank and credit union accounts were obtained at courts in Belfast and London as part of a joint PSNI/Metropolitan Police investigation into suspected terrorist finances.

McLaughlin, Jordan and Duffy contested the legality of the steps taken in Northern Ireland.

Judicial review proceedings were issued against the chief constable and a district judge who granted the freezing orders under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Defence lawyers claimed issues around consultation rendered the original orders unlawful.

With eight accounts remaining frozen, the High Court initially accepted there had not been precise compliance with the Act.

However, the judge held that any failure to consult had no identifiable prejudicial effect.