Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Con and Ad > 3. Arts 2, 3, 5, 6 > Flashcards

3. Arts 2, 3, 5, 6 Flashcards

1
Q

Art 2(2)

A

Limitations

  1. Defence of any person from unlawful violence
  2. To effect lawful arrest or prevent escape of person lawfully detained
  3. Action lawfully taken for purpose of quelling riot/insurrection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK

A

IRA members shot dead driving to Gibraltar

Two obligations on state

  1. To investigate all situations in which state directly takes life
  2. Refrain from unlawful killing - duty of command, control and training
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Jordan v UK

A

Violation of Art 2 found on grounds of flawed inquests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Osman v Uk

A

Art 2 can impose positive obligation on state to protect life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Amin

A

Failure to carry out investigation that was public, independent and with involvement of family was in breach of Art 2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

NHS Trust A v M

A

Withdrawal of treatment to M (patient in persistent vegetative state) wouldn’t constitute a breach of Art 2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Petty v UK

A

ECtHR upholds UK courts refusal to promise immunity from prosecution to husband of a patient suffering from motor neurone disease in the event he helped to commit suicide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust

A

Overturning CA, HL holds NHS trust under positive duty to prevent psychiatric patient committing suicide after release

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Q

A

Art 3 imposes positive duty on public authority to take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture or IDT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Bagdanavicious

A

C may be able to establish Art 3 claim if he can show that authority knew or ought to have known of circumstances likely to expose him to torture or IDT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Ireland v UK

A

Basic distinction between torture and IDT

Systematic programme including wall-standing and sleep deprivation amounts only to IDT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Askoy v Turkey

A

Applicant stripped naked, strung up with arms tied behind back and had electrodes attached to genitals. Beaten for 4 days. Torture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Aydin v Turkey

A

Applicant raped, beaten, stripped and sprayed with high-pressure water. Torture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Napier v The Scottish Ministers

A

Lack of toilet facilities in prison cell, aggravating applicant’s eczema, is IDT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Sprinks

A

Failure to release prisoner to facilitate treatment for cancer held not to be IDT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Soering v UK

A

Deportation of German national to US, where he would face death penalty, would violate Art 3 because of drawn-out nature of process would amount to IDT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Chahal v UK

A

Deportation of Sikh activist to India would violate Art 3 because at risk of mistreatment by rogue elements in Punjab police

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

EM and others

A

Duty not to deport foreign nationals held not to apply only to countries with real, systematic risk of our IDT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Vinnter and others v UK

A

Whole-life tariff violates Art 3

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

A-G’s Ref (No 69 of 2013)

A

Whole-life tariffs don’t breach Art 3

21
Q

Art 5(1)

A

Provides for substantive right of liberty

Then lists circumstances in which it might be lawful for one to be deprived of liberty

22
Q

Art 5(1)(c)

A

Police powers - arrest is allowed to bring person before competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing offence or fleeing having done today

23
Q

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK

A

Key case on ‘reasonable suspicion’ requirement in Art 5(1)(c) - even in emergency situation ‘suspicion’ not enough; must be ‘reasonable’

Simply informing someone at the time of arrest that he was being arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist was not sufficient

24
Q

Johnson v UK

A

Continual forced detention at psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems of post-release facilities, held to be justifiable under art 5(1)

25
Q

Art 5(2)

A

Arrested person must be informed promptly and clearly of reasons for rest and any charge against him

26
Q

Art 5(3)

A

Person detained under art 5(1)(c) must be brought promptly before judge

27
Q

Brogan v UK

A

Detention after arrest of 4 days and 6 hours held to violate 5(3)

28
Q

Art 5(4)

A

Person arrested and detained is entitled speedily to challenge in court lawfulness of arrest

29
Q

Art 2(1)

A

Right to life

30
Q

TA 2000, s 41(1)

A

Power is given to arrest person whom officer ‘reasonably suspects is a terrorist’

31
Q

PACE 1984, s 41(7)

A

Basically length of detention without charge of 24 hours

32
Q

PACE 1984, s 42(1)

A

Can be extended to 36 hours if authorised by senior police officer

33
Q

TA 2000, s 41(3)

A

Police can detain person for up to 48 hours on own authority

34
Q

Austin v Commissioner of Met Police

A

Kettling not breach of art 5

35
Q

Austin v UK

A

ECtHR agrees kettling doesn’t violate Art 5

36
Q

Art 6(1)

A

Provides right to fair trial

37
Q

Art 6(2)

A

Innocent till proven guilty

38
Q

Art 6(3)

A

Detailed rights associated with fair trial, including legal assistance

39
Q

Airey v Ireland

A

Unavailability of legal aid amounts to violation of Art 6

40
Q

McGonnell v UK

A

ECtHR makes it clear eve minor doubt as to legality of impartiality of tribunal could violate Art 6

41
Q

R (Beeson) v Dorset CC

A

CA held that administrative panel that was not wholly independent would not necessarily violate Art 6, if panel still able to teach fair and reasonable recommendation

42
Q

Murray (John) v UK

A

Denial of access to legal advice during questioning following arrest constituted a violation of art. 6, since it would call into question fairness of any subsequent trial process

43
Q

PACE 1984, s 58

A

Suspects are entitled to consult solicitor in private at any time, and during police questioning

44
Q

TA 2000, Sch 8 para 7

A

Right to consult solicitor during police questioning

45
Q

PACE 1984, code C

A

Sets out provisions relating to legal advice

46
Q

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, ss 34-37

A

Person who at trial relies on material piece of evidence which he failed to mention during questioning runs the risk that the court will draw adverse inference it from the silence

47
Q

Condron v UK

A

Adverse inferences from silence should be made only if court satisfied this is because Ds have no answer to case put to them by police or one which would not stand up to cross-examination

48
Q

R v A

A

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 prevented D in rape trial from adducing evidence relating to complainant’s sexual history

Held: this would impede D’s right to a fair trial on violation of Art 6

49
Q

Othman v UK

A

Deportation by UK of Abu Qatada to Jordan held to violate at 6 because of risk of evidence gained by torture being used against him

Con and Ad (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions