A5 cases Flashcards
Right to liberty and security of person.
Guzzardi V Italy
Facts: Criminal suspect sent to isolated island. Told to report to authorities twice a day and be at home between 10pm and 7am.
Ratio: He wasn’t allowed to go to bars/nightclubs. ECtHR held these restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty under A5.
Successful Case, A5 S5.
Also defines liberty: Degree and intensity of restrictions.
JJ V Secretary of State for the Home Dept
Facts: A deprivation of liberty took place, and subject to A5, when the controlees were subject to an 18 hour house curfew. Visitors has to be authorised there were severe limits on their movements into the 6 hours.
Ratio: Court held that the secretary of state had no power to make the control orders and quashed them, amounts to deprivation.
Successful Case, A5 S5.
Liberty: Control Orders, Deprivation consists of severe restrictions on ordinary life.
Secretary of State for the Home Dep v E
Facts: A person made subject to a control order was subject to a 12 hour curfew, in his own home where he lived with his wife and family.
Ratio: No deprivation there was only the curfew. No restrictions on where he could go and who could see.
Unsuccessful Case, A5 S5.
Austin V Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Facts: Police stood in lines across the exits from Oxford tube station in London during a demonstration.
People were only allowed to leave the ‘Kettle’ only with permission but many were held for over 7 hours.
Ratio: Supreme Court.
A person can be deprived of their liberty even though a door is not locked, or a physical barrier is not in place.
No deprivation, done in good faith, proportionate.
R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Ratio: Court ruled that the police had acted unlawfully in ‘containing’ or kettling
G20 protesters.
It made clear that police must anticipate an imminent breach of the peace before taking ‘preventative action’.
High Court.
Mengesha V Metrapolitan Police
Facts: Police authorised a ‘kettle’ of about 100 people during protest.
Ratio: No one disputed the containment was justified because serious damage and a breach at the peace had occurred.
When leaving, people were filmed and asked name and address before they could leave.
Breach of A8.
Engel V The Netherlands
Defines physical liberty.
Cheshire West and Chester Council V P
Facts: P was incontinent, ate pieces of his pads.
Was put into full body suit.
Ratio: Comfortability doesn’t matter.
Supreme court using the test of ‘is the patient under continuous supervision and not entitled to leave’ decided the individuals were being deprived of their liberty.
R v Samuel
Facts: Denied access to legal advice/solicitor.
Case thrown out and convictions quashed.
Ratio: Cannot deny right to legal advice but can delay in certain circumstances.
Suspected acts of terrorism.
