Article 5 A03

Question 1

What are the 4 WDPs for Article 5

Answer 1

Limited Right
Deprivation
Kettling
Police Powers

Question 2

+P1: Limited right = protects

Answer 2

the rights of the public from arbitrary powers of the state + effective as it limits interference to a - f

Question 3

+DP1: Subsections a-f are practical as they clearly outline when

Answer 3

interference is justified and don’t just protect suspected criminals but also vulnerable people such as those of unsound mind and children which is fair

Question 4

+WDP1: Art 5(4) protects the public

Answer 4

places a positive obligation on the state to ensure that an individual can challenge their detention upholding habeas corpus and Art 5

Question 5

+P2: deprivation protects the rights of the public as it is decided on a cases by cases basis

Answer 5

Guzzardi v Italy confirmed the court has discretion determining between restriction and deprivation = flexible and accommodating

Question 6

-DP2: Lack of guidance on

Answer 6

what constitutes deprivation = uncertainty and ineffective protection

Question 7

+WDP2: clarified in Cheshire West v P

Answer 7

‘continuous control and not free to leave’ provider a clearer objective standard → gives further protection

Question 8

-P3: Kettling is very controversial and heavily criticised as

Answer 8

failing to protect individuals expressing their Article 11 right of assembly, law is confusing as Austin v UK has allowed kettling despite not being in a-f

Question 9

+DP3: R(Moos) v Met Police has tried to

Answer 9

protect individuals by restricting police’ use of kettling - only as a last resort which upholds art 5

Question 10

+WDP3: Mengesha v Met Police also tightened police powers regarding kettling,

Answer 10

with forcing protestors to give their name and be photographed violated Art 5 which shows how the law is ensuring the police doesn’t have excessive power

Question 11

+P4: PACE protects individuals from police’s

Answer 11

arbitrary power with codes of practice acting as safeguards to ensure the police act fairly without discrimination

Question 12

+DP4: these rules ensure fairness

Answer 12

individuals can challenge their treatment - R v Samuel = violation of rights and conviction quashed

Question 13

-WDP4: s.60 CJPO has been criticised for

Answer 13

giving the police too much power and leaves individuals vulnerable to abuse of police power