Article 5 evaluation

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

People have the right to not be arbitrarily detained by the state.
Links to Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus
Limited right so can’t be interfered with unless under the right or the state derogates.

Question 2

Limited right good

Answer 2

Public protected from state interference.
Limited to subsections which seems fair.

Question 3

Limited rights bad

Answer 3

Long list from A-F
Some not allowed under A-F

Question 4

Some not allowed under A-F case

Answer 4

Austin

Question 5

Deprivation A01

Answer 5

Deprivation is more than a restriction.
Decided on a case by case basis.
Being kept during stop and search isn’t deprivation.

Question 6

Stop and search isn’t deprivation case

Answer 6

Roberts

Question 7

Deprivation A03 Good

Answer 7

Protects public rights as case by case
Issues monitored and movements restricted lawfully

Question 8

Protects public rights as case by case

Answer 8

Guzzardi

Question 9

Deprivation A03 But

Answer 9

Lack of set definition leads to uncertainty

Question 10

Uncertainty with deprivation cases

Answer 10

Austin
Cheshire

Question 11

Arrest

Answer 11

Cannot arbitrarily arrest people that might offend
Arrest regulations under S24 PACE
Arrested person must be told reason, charges and in a language they understand

Question 12

Cannot arbitrarily arrest people who might offend

Answer 12

Shivmolos

Question 13

Language they understand case

Answer 13

Taylor

Question 14

Brought before judge

Answer 14

Within a reasonable period of time
Judges should consider bail
Bail should be granted unless a substantial reason

Question 15

Within a reasonable period of time case

Answer 15

McKay

Question 16

Lawfulness of detention

Answer 16

Decided speedily by court.
Detention of mentally ill reviewed by mental health tribunal.
Detention in prison is reviewed by parole board.

Question 17

Detention in prison is reviewed by parole board case

Answer 17

Noorkoiv

Question 18

Procedure prescribed by law A03 Good

Answer 18

Mental capacity act not always followed.
PACE clear procedures.

Question 19

What’s an example of a clear PACE procedure?

Answer 19

Being in a language that’s understood.

Question 20

Under mental capacity act case

Answer 20

Cheshire

Question 21

In a language that’s understood case

Answer 21

Samuel

Question 22

Procedure prescribed by law A03 But

Answer 22

TPMI’S highly restrictive
Too flexible

Question 23

What’s too flexible?

Answer 23

The meaning of prompt

Question 24

TPIM’S highly restrictive case

Answer 24

Sec of state

Question 25

7 hours before arrest prompt case

Answer 25

Fox

Question 26

4 days before brought before a judge case

Answer 26

McKay

Question 27

Lawfulness decided speedily by court right to challenge good

Answer 27

Positive obligation on state to prevent deprivation of liberty.
Fundamental rights upheld by courts.

Question 28

Fundamental rights upheld by courts case

Answer 28

Samuel

Question 29

Lawfulness decided speedily by court right to challenge But

Answer 29

Parole board does not always agree with public opinion which leads to complexity and controversy.

Question 30

Police powers good

Answer 30

Brief so not usually a deprivation of liberty
PACE lots of rules so misused

Question 31

Police powers bad

Answer 31

Definition of reasonable suspicion is unclear.

Question 32

Right to compensate A01

Answer 32

Any violation of Article5 gives the applicant an enforceable right to compensation.

Question 33

Right to compensate A03 Good

Answer 33

Uk law has good common law background
ECTHR awarded comp for stop and search

Question 34

Uk law has good common law background cases

Answer 34

Christie
Richardson

Question 35

Right to compensate A03 Bad

Answer 35

No compensation for kettling
No scale of what compensation if their is a breach

Question 36

Kettling cases

Answer 36

Austin
Mengesha
Moos