Article 5 - Case List Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Guzzardi v Italy: Facts

A

D was suspected of being in the mafia. He was ordered to live on an island with limited contact with others under a curfew

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

Guzzardi v Italy: Decision

A

ECtHR held that this was more than a restriction of liberty, it was a deprivation as required by 5 (1)

Deprivation will be based on ‘degree and intensity’, and the court will consider the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation

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

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P: Facts

A

P was incontinent and had a habit of tearing pieces off his incontinence pad and eating it. His carer’s had tried to interven by getting him to open his mouth and using their fingers to try and sweep out the material

So as to prevent hum accessing the pad, he was placed in an all-body suit like a baby-grow which he couldn’t open from the front

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

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P: Decision

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

Austin and Ors v UK: Facts

A

Police stoof in lines across exits from Oxford Circus during a demonstration. People were allowed to leave the ‘kettle’ only with permission but many were held for more than 7 hours

This was necessary to prevent damage/injury

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

Austin and Ors v UK: Decision

A

HOL considered if measured were used in good faith, proportionate and enforced for no longer than necessary, there could be no breach

Lord Hope: ‘person can be deprived of his 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’

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

R (Moos) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: Facts

A

Court ruled police had acted unlawfully in ‘containing’ G20 protestors. Made clear that police must be in reasonable apprehension of an ‘imminent breach of the peace’ before taking ‘preventative action’

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

R (Moos) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: Decision

A

Police have no arbitrary power to kettle people

Shoudd only be used as a lat resort when there is evidence of an imminent breach of the peace

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

JE v DE: Facts

A

D suffered a stroke and was blind with short term memory less, dementia and lacked ability to decide where to live

DE and JE temporarily lived together but DE then lived in many care homes despite wanting to live with JE

Deprived of liberty as he wasn’t ‘free to leave’

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

JE v DE: Decision

A

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

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

Winterwerp v Netherlands: Facts

A

W was detained in hospital and complained his detention had divested him of his ability to administer his property therefore there had been determination of his civil liberties and obligations without guarantee of a judicial procedure

Held: ‘the individual concerned should not be deprived of his liberty unless he has reliably been shown to be of ‘sound mind’’

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

Winterwerp v Netherlands: Decision

A

Detention of a mentally disordered patient can be justified if:

  • the patient has a medically recognised mental condition established by a medical expert
  • the disorder must be sufficient to justify the detention
  • detention should only be for the duration that the disorder exists
  • detention must be at an appropriate institution
  • detention should be periodically reviewed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Ricketts v Cox: Facts

A

Suspect was very abusive and hsotile when questionned. He was held to be guilty of ‘obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty’

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

Ricketts v Cox: Decision

A

You can refuse to answer questions asked by the police, but it is an offence to be hostile

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

R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Facts

A

R was stopped and searched on a bus under s.60 CJPO based on the possibility of her having an offensive weapon. She had not been arrested or handcuffed or restrained

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

R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Decision

A

Being kept waiting during a stop and search procedure is not a deprivation of liberty

17
Q

R (Gillian) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Facts

A

A random stop and search under s.44 Terrorism Act 2000 was not lawful

18
Q

R (Gillian) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Decision

A

Under s.47 Terrorism Act 2000, there must be a reasonable belief an act of terrorism will take place

19
Q

Osman v DPP

A

The stop and search was unlawful as the officer didn’t give their name or station to the suspect

20
Q

Stafford v UK

A

Continued detention after a convention must be linked to the conviction and cannot be arbitrary

21
Q

Shimovolos v Russia: Facts

A

D was Russian and his name was tagged as a potential threat and was arrested and questioned

22
Q

Shimovolos v Russia: Decisions

A

Article 5 (1)(c) didn’t allow detention as a general policy of prevention, of people who were perceived to be dangerous or likely to offend

PACE s.24 1984

  • ‘reasonable suspicion’
  • ‘necessary’
23
Q

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK: Decision

A

The police must inform the detainee they’re under arrest and why

This can be up to 7 hours after the arrest

24
Q

Christie v Leachinsky: Decision

A

The police must issue the caution so they are informed of what’s happening and why. Failure to do so may amount to false imprisonment

25
Q

R v Samuel: Decision

A

Refusal of access to a solicitor before the final interview was unjustified and the interview shouldn’t have taken place

Breach under s.58 PACE 1984

26
Q

Brogan v UK: Decision

A

Suspected terrorists were held for 4 days and 6 hours from arrest to being brought before a judge. This was considered too long

27
Q

McKay v UK: Decision

A

Court held 4 days is the maximum time fro arrest to being brought before a judge

28
Q

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Noorkoiv: Decision

A

It was decided that a Parole Board hearing 3 months after the expiry of a tariff period of alife sentence breached Article 5(4) even though this was standard practice

Requirement for a speedy decision is also applied to reviews of detention

29
Q

R v Howell: Decision

A

there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, an unlawful assembly or other disturbance.

30
Q

Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Decision

A

containment to prevent a breach of the peace was lawful but not retention of photographs and details of breach of the peace