Art 5: Right to Liberty and Security

Question 1

Guzzardi v Italy (1981)

Answer 1

DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY:
G was suspected of being in the mafia so the Italian government sent him to an island with no contact to anyone and a curfew.
Verdict: Guzzardi

Question 2

Austin & Others v UK (2012)

Answer 2

DEPRIVATION DURING PROTEST:
Police used kettling to stop a protest and they gradually released the protesters over time. HoL and ECtHR said that it did not constitute deprivation as it prevented violence.
Verdict: UK

Question 3

R (Moos) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (2011)

Answer 3

DEPRIVATION DURING PROTEST:
CoA decided police had acted lawfully by using a kettle as kettles should only be used as a last resort when a threat is imminent.
Verdict: Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Question 4

Mengesha v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (2013)

Answer 4

DEPRIVATION DURING PROTEST:
Police made protesters give their name and addresses before they were let out of the kettles. High Court held that that was unlawful.
Verdict: Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Question 5

Cheshire West and Cheshire Council v P (2014)

Answer 5

DEPRIVATION WHILE IN CARE:
P had cerebral palsy and down syndrome and was cared for by his mum. When his mum’s health deteriorated he needed 24 hour care. The supreme court held that this was deprivation as he was not free to leave.
Verdict: P

Question 6

Winterwerp v Netherlands (1979)

Answer 6

DEPRIVATION WHILE IN CARE:
Detention can only be justified if
- Patient has medically recognised condition
- Disorder must be sufficient for detention
- Detention should be for the duration that the disorder exists
- Detention must be at an appropriate institution
- Detention must be periodically reviewed
Verdict: Winterwerp

Question 7

R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2012)

Answer 7

DEPRIVATION BY POLICE:
Being Kept Waiting during a stop and search is not a deprivation of liberty.
Verdict: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Question 8

Osman v DPP (1999)

Answer 8

TERRORISM:
Police did not give their names and stations and therefore the search was unlawful and Osman could not be charged with assault of a police officer.
Verdict: Osman

Question 9

Stafford v UK (2002)

Answer 9

PRESCRIBED BY LAW:
Stafford was detained and convicted arbitrarily so therefore it was unlawful.
Verdict: Stafford

Question 10

Shimovolos v Russia (2011)

Answer 10

PRESCRIBED BY LAW:
Russian man heading to a protest and he was stopped and detained. His detention was unlawful as you cannot arrest people who you think MAY offend.
Verdict: Shimovolos