ARTICLE 5 Flashcards

U6 KA3 (21 cards)

1
Q

Article 5

A

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of this right except for in the situations in 5(1) (a-f) and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law

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

Article 5(1) (a-c)

A

The situations when a state can lawfully deprive a person of their liberty

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

The distinction between deprivation and restriction of liberty

A

There is a distinction between a deprivation of and a restriction of liberty, depending on factors such as degree and intensity (Guzzardi v Italy, type (Austin v UK) and length (Kasparov v Russia)

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

HM v Switzerland

A

Article 5 can only be engaged when there is a deprivation of liberty, not a mere restriction

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

Austin v UK

A

Kettling can be either a restriction or deprivation. Decided by whether the containment was 1. unavoidable 2. necessary 3. kept to the minimum

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

Depriving liberty can be lawful if one of these exceptions apply…

A

5(1)(a) - person has been convicted to a sentence by the court
5(1)(b) - to secure compliance with a lawful obligation
5(1)(c) - on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or to prevent an offence

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

Ostendorf v Germany

A

Any obligation must be specific and concrete, rather than a general duty to obey police instructions

5(1)(b)

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

Kasparov v Russia

A

There was an unlawful deprivation as there was no evidence or any reasonable grounds for suspicion

5(1)(c)

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

5.2

A

Informed promptly, in language they understand, the reason for detention

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

5.3

A

Only applies to (1)(c): Brought promptly before a judge to decide whether to remain in custody or be released on bail

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

R(Hicks) v Commissioner of PM

A

Preventative detention can only be lawful provided the arrest was lawful

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

5.4

A

Lawfulness of detention decided speedily by court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

5.5

A

Anyone arrested/detained in contradiction with these provisions entitled to compensation

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

UK domestic legislation complying with Article 5

A

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984

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

s.24(1) PACE

A

Police officers can arrest a suspect without a warrant where a person is committing, is about to or has committed a criminal offence

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

s.24(5) PACE

A

Reasonable grounds that make arrest necessary:
- Identify suspect
- Prevent injury/damage
- Allow effective investigation
- Prevent suspect from dissapearing

17
Q

What is the 2-stage test to prevent necessity?

PACE

A

Hayes:
1. Did the officer actually believe the arrest was necessary? (subjective)
2. Was that belief objectively reasonably

18
Q

s.28

A

An arrested person has the right to be told the reason for their arrest ASAP

19
Q

During an anticipated breach of the peace, when should the power of arrest be used?

A

Only when there is a sufficiently serious and imminent threat

20
Q

Hicks

Breach of peace

A

Detention for preventative reasons is not an unlawful deprivation of liberty

21
Q

Define breach of peace

A

The behaviour of the person involved causing the police officer to believe that a breach of peace had or would occur and that it related to harm which was done or likely to be done to a person OR a person is in fear of being harmed - R v Howell