EXCEPTIONS 51(a-f) ARTICLE 5(1) IN ACCORDANCE WIT
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY LAW
court In accordance with national law and not arbitra
(b) lawful arrest/detention for non-compliance with the lawful order of LINK
a court (skipped bail, ignoring court ect.) There must be a connection between the origina
(c) the lawful arrest/detention on reasonable suspicion of having continued detention (Stafford v UK) LINK
committed an offence/to prevent his committing and offenceEXCEPTIONS ARE ONLY VALID IF IN Relative levels of freedom did not mean a perso
(stop+search, police powers ect) ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE of his freedom if he was 'not free to leave' (JE v
(d) detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of PRESCRIBED BY LAW
Need for a therapeutic environment (Ashingdan
educational supervision
(e) lawful detention of a persons of unsound mind (quarentine,rehab
ect)
(f) lawful arrest/detention to prevent unauthorisedARTICLE 5:country
entry into the CARE SETTINGS/MENTALLY WINTERWERP T
+ deportation/extradition The patient has a medi
DEPRIVATION OF DISORDERED PERSONS SCENARIO mental condition establ
LIBERTY? ART5 ECHR STATES THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY
expert
Defined under Storck v Germany test AND SECURITY OF PERSON AND THAT NO ONE SHALL BE DEPRIEVED The disorder must be s
OF HIS LIBERTY SAVE IN EXCEPTIONS LISTED IN 5(1)(a)-(f) AND IN detention
where: Detention should only b
ACCORDANCE W/ PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
it has an objective element of a person's that the disorder exists
LIMITED RIGHT: cannot be interfered with by the state unless allowed under
confinement to a certain limited place for subsections a-f or the state derogates. Detention must be at an
a non-negotiable length HISTORICAL RIGHT: links to Magna Carta + Habeas Corpus = right to not be institution
+ the subjective element of lack of consent imprisoned without trial The detention should b
+ state is responsible For there to be a BREACH of Art5 a person MUST BE DEPRIVED of THEIR reviewed
Guzzardi v Italy test LIBERTY, restriction person's liberty may not be sufficient enough to be
Courts will consider the effect of the considered a deprivation and the ECtHR will decide the facts on each case
restriction, the manner of the restriction, s.5(4) ENTITLED TO TAKE PROCEE
social isolation (Amuur v France), If there WHICH THE LAWFULNESS OF HIS
was no way of leaving (even for a short s.5(5) Compensation SHALL BE DECIDED SPEEDILY BY
period of time) (Shimovolas v Russia)
Conclusion Really only if there was large
Cheshire West and Chester Similar to remedies- moving to a a differe
violations
Council v P, Lady Hale Acid Test regular reviews ect.
The applicant is under continous control
and not free to leave
, KETTLING:
Is the practice of confining groups of protestors in a small area, often COURTS WILL CONSIDER:
The TYPE, MANNER + CONT
without food, water, shelter or toilet facilities in order to prevent violence THE RESTRICTION LINK
AUSTIN AND OTHERS V UK police used technique called 'kettling' during a protest in
Whether the THREAT of a BR
London where protestors blocked in a small area + gradually released over a number of hours.
Held by HOL + ECtHR did not constitute as a deprivation as the police were justified in doing OF THE PEACE IS IMMINEN
this to prevent violence, damage and injury Whether the POLICE have
R (MOOS) V METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER high court ruled that EXHAUSTED ALL ALTERNA
kettling of G20 was unlawful however the COA decided the police had acted lawfully. Police OPTIONS LINK
have no arbitrary power to kettle people. It should only be used as a last resort when there is MENGES
evidence of an imminent breach of the peace
it was unla
DEPRIVATION: ARTICLE 5: KETTLING SCENARIOpolice to t
The meaning of deprivation of liberty has been photos of
discussed in both ECtHR and domestic courts. C. could potentially bring a claim for breach of Art5. Art5(1) of the protestors
LADY HALE ACID TEST: under
ECHR states that everyone has the right to liberty and security of condition o
continuous supervision and control and
person and that no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in
not allowed to leave the kettle a
In STORCK V GERMANY a 'deprivation exception listed in 5(1) a-f, and in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law. photos sho
of liberty' was defined as; obj element- a
person's confinement to a certain limited LIMITED RIGHT: Cannot be interfered with by the state destroyed
place for a non-negotiable length of time, unless allowed under subsections a-f or the state derogates
and the subj element- lack of consent, and LINKS TO THE HISTORICAL RIGHT: habeas corpus and
the state is responsible for the CONC
Magna Carta 1215
confinement RESTRICTION MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH for
under A
LORD HOPE in Austin v Commissioner is no/ri
of Police of the Metropolis said that, 'a deprivation and the ECtHR WILL DECIDE FACTS IN EACH
CASE compen
person can be deprived of his liberty
even if his departure is not prevented by unlawf
a locked door' LINK of liber
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY LAW
court In accordance with national law and not arbitra
(b) lawful arrest/detention for non-compliance with the lawful order of LINK
a court (skipped bail, ignoring court ect.) There must be a connection between the origina
(c) the lawful arrest/detention on reasonable suspicion of having continued detention (Stafford v UK) LINK
committed an offence/to prevent his committing and offenceEXCEPTIONS ARE ONLY VALID IF IN Relative levels of freedom did not mean a perso
(stop+search, police powers ect) ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE of his freedom if he was 'not free to leave' (JE v
(d) detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of PRESCRIBED BY LAW
Need for a therapeutic environment (Ashingdan
educational supervision
(e) lawful detention of a persons of unsound mind (quarentine,rehab
ect)
(f) lawful arrest/detention to prevent unauthorisedARTICLE 5:country
entry into the CARE SETTINGS/MENTALLY WINTERWERP T
+ deportation/extradition The patient has a medi
DEPRIVATION OF DISORDERED PERSONS SCENARIO mental condition establ
LIBERTY? ART5 ECHR STATES THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY
expert
Defined under Storck v Germany test AND SECURITY OF PERSON AND THAT NO ONE SHALL BE DEPRIEVED The disorder must be s
OF HIS LIBERTY SAVE IN EXCEPTIONS LISTED IN 5(1)(a)-(f) AND IN detention
where: Detention should only b
ACCORDANCE W/ PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
it has an objective element of a person's that the disorder exists
LIMITED RIGHT: cannot be interfered with by the state unless allowed under
confinement to a certain limited place for subsections a-f or the state derogates. Detention must be at an
a non-negotiable length HISTORICAL RIGHT: links to Magna Carta + Habeas Corpus = right to not be institution
+ the subjective element of lack of consent imprisoned without trial The detention should b
+ state is responsible For there to be a BREACH of Art5 a person MUST BE DEPRIVED of THEIR reviewed
Guzzardi v Italy test LIBERTY, restriction person's liberty may not be sufficient enough to be
Courts will consider the effect of the considered a deprivation and the ECtHR will decide the facts on each case
restriction, the manner of the restriction, s.5(4) ENTITLED TO TAKE PROCEE
social isolation (Amuur v France), If there WHICH THE LAWFULNESS OF HIS
was no way of leaving (even for a short s.5(5) Compensation SHALL BE DECIDED SPEEDILY BY
period of time) (Shimovolas v Russia)
Conclusion Really only if there was large
Cheshire West and Chester Similar to remedies- moving to a a differe
violations
Council v P, Lady Hale Acid Test regular reviews ect.
The applicant is under continous control
and not free to leave
, KETTLING:
Is the practice of confining groups of protestors in a small area, often COURTS WILL CONSIDER:
The TYPE, MANNER + CONT
without food, water, shelter or toilet facilities in order to prevent violence THE RESTRICTION LINK
AUSTIN AND OTHERS V UK police used technique called 'kettling' during a protest in
Whether the THREAT of a BR
London where protestors blocked in a small area + gradually released over a number of hours.
Held by HOL + ECtHR did not constitute as a deprivation as the police were justified in doing OF THE PEACE IS IMMINEN
this to prevent violence, damage and injury Whether the POLICE have
R (MOOS) V METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER high court ruled that EXHAUSTED ALL ALTERNA
kettling of G20 was unlawful however the COA decided the police had acted lawfully. Police OPTIONS LINK
have no arbitrary power to kettle people. It should only be used as a last resort when there is MENGES
evidence of an imminent breach of the peace
it was unla
DEPRIVATION: ARTICLE 5: KETTLING SCENARIOpolice to t
The meaning of deprivation of liberty has been photos of
discussed in both ECtHR and domestic courts. C. could potentially bring a claim for breach of Art5. Art5(1) of the protestors
LADY HALE ACID TEST: under
ECHR states that everyone has the right to liberty and security of condition o
continuous supervision and control and
person and that no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in
not allowed to leave the kettle a
In STORCK V GERMANY a 'deprivation exception listed in 5(1) a-f, and in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law. photos sho
of liberty' was defined as; obj element- a
person's confinement to a certain limited LIMITED RIGHT: Cannot be interfered with by the state destroyed
place for a non-negotiable length of time, unless allowed under subsections a-f or the state derogates
and the subj element- lack of consent, and LINKS TO THE HISTORICAL RIGHT: habeas corpus and
the state is responsible for the CONC
Magna Carta 1215
confinement RESTRICTION MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH for
under A
LORD HOPE in Austin v Commissioner is no/ri
of Police of the Metropolis said that, 'a deprivation and the ECtHR WILL DECIDE FACTS IN EACH
CASE compen
person can be deprived of his liberty
even if his departure is not prevented by unlawf
a locked door' LINK of liber
