Article 5 Flashcards
Step 1: What is Article 5?
Article 5 provides everyone with the Right to Liberty and Security.
This is a limited right which means the state can restrict the right if it is prescribed by law and fits into one of the justification provided for in the Article (5)(1)(a)-(f) or the state derogates
Step 2: Has there been a deprivation of liberty?
- Guzzardi v Italy: decision on whether there has been a deprivation will be based on ‘degree and intensity’ and courts will consider; type, duration, effects and manner of implementation
- Cheshire West and Chester Council v P: acid test for deprivation - ‘is the person under continuous supervision and control and not free to leave’
Step 3: Article 5 (1)(a)-(f)
An individual can be deprived of their liberty so long as it is prescribed by law and one of the justifications under Article 5.1(a)-(f) applies.
(a) The lawful detention of a person after conviction by a court
(b) The lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with a court order
*** (c) The lawful arrest and detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the court
(d) The detention of a minor
*** (e) The lawful detention of persons for prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants
(f) The lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent an unauthorised entry into the country
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
- deprivation during a protest
- deprivation due to TPIM
- deprivation whilst in care
- deprivation of mentally disordered patient
- deprivation by the police short of arrest
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation during a protest
The usual circumstances in which liberty is restricted is where a person has been arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence or due to a hospital order
- Austin and Ors v UK:* ‘ a person can be deprived of their liberty even if his departure is not prevented by a locked door or other physical barrier and even though he may be allowed extensive social and other contact with the outside world’ and that kettling is not a deprivation of liberty
- R (Moos) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner:* police have no arbitrary power to kettle people and it should only be used as a last resort when there’s evidence of an imminent breach of the peace
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation due to TPIM
Control orders enabled the Home Secretary to impose an almost unlimited range of restrictions on any person suspected of involvement in terrorism
In January 2012 the government replaced control orders with TPIM’s
TPIM = Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
They are BTEC control orders and are outside the criminal justice system and initiated by the Home Secretary
A TPIM:
- can includes electronic tagging and an overnight residence requirement
- allows ‘controlees’ to use the internet, but they can be restricted on who they can meet and where they can go, including foreign travel bans
- they’re limited to 2 yrs but can be re-ordered as soon as the existing one expires if there is evidence to do so
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation whilst in care
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P: People in care can be deprived of their liberty if they are under constant supervision
JE v DE: The crucial quesion is whether he is ‘free to leave’, not only for approved outings but also to permanently live where or with whom he chooses. There can be deprivation of liberty in the absence of a lock or physical barrier
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation of mentally disordered patients
Winterwerp v Netherlands:
The detention of a mentally disorder patient can be justfied if:
- the patient has a medically recognised condition established by a medical expert
- disorder must be sufficient to justofy detention
- detention should only be for the duration that the disorder exists
- detention must be at an appropriate institution
- detention should be reviewed periodically
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation of liberty by the police short of arrest
STOP AND QUESTION
A person who is stopped and questioned by the police can refuse to answer as long as they haven’t been arrested
Rice v Connolly: You can refuse to answer questions asked by the police, but it is an offence to be hostile
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation of liberty by the police short of arrest
STOP AND ACCOUNT
The police can ask someone to stop and account for their:
- behaviour
- actions
- presence in an area
- possession of anything
All stops must be recorded and a copy given to them
A record doesn’t have to made if the the police officer is asking for general information such as directions or if you’ve seen someone
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation of liberty by the police short of arrest
STOP AND SEARCH
The police power includes the ability to stop and question a suspect and if necessary search their person and vehicle
The strict rules for stop and search are contained in s.1 and Code A of the PACE Act 1984
The suspect must be told
- why they’re being stopped and searched
- the officer’s name, number and station (if not in uniform, must show ID)
- an explanation of the grounds
The search must be carried out in a public place, and can only remove coat, jacket and gloves. Should they need to remove more clothing, they must move the suspect to place out of view
s.117 PACE Act 1984 allows reasonable force to be used
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation of liberty by the police short of arrest
STOP AND SEARCH - s.1 PACE Act 1984
states ‘the police must have reasonable grounds for suspecting a person is in possession of stolen goods or prohibited articles’. Must be done in a public place.
Code A states these powers must be used fairly, with respect and without discrimination
‘suspicion’ - must be based on intelligence, information or the suspects behaviour only
‘prohibited article’ =
- weapons (Firearms Act 1968)
- things used to commit burglary
- drugs (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971)
- terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000)
- criminal damage
Allows stolen or prohibited articles to be seized
A record of the stop and search must be made as soon as possible after the search and must include date, time, place, reason for search, self-defined ethnicity, outcome and if any injury/damage was caused
copy must be given to the suspect
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation of liberty by the police short of arrest
STOP AND SEARCH - additional powers
There are additional powers in s.60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and under s.44 Terrorism Act 2000
Here there is no need for reasonable grounds, but a senior officer must suspect there could be serious violence
- Terrorism Act 2000* - allows shoes to be removed
- CJPOA 1994* - allowed a disguise to be removed
Step 4: A deprivation could also be justified if it falls into one of the following categories
Deprivation of liberty by the police short of arrest
STOP AND SEARCH - case law
R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis - being kept waiting during a stop and search is not a deprivation
R (Gillian) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis - there must be a reasonable belief an act of terrorism will take palce
Osman v DPP - police didn’t give their names and station to the suspect and was therefore unlawful
‘fishing exhibition’ is also not allowed - where a person is searched without reasonable grounds
Step 5: In accordance with procedure prescibed by law
Under Article 5 is states that ‘no one shall be deprived of his liberty save… in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law’
This is concerned with domestic law, whether the action conforms with the relevant domestic law is a question for the state but the ECtHR will scrutinise the measure to ensure this is the case.
A deprivation may be justified but it will only be lawful (and not a breach/violation of Article 5) if it is prescribed by law that is not arbitrary i.e. there is a clear and precise law that allows for the deprivation, and the state has followed the law correctly (Stafford v UK)