Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims on human rights law.
Held: The appeal failed. Whether there is a deprivation of liberty, as opposed to a restriction of movement, is a matter of degree and intensity. Account must be taken of a whole range of factors, including the specific situation of the individual and the context in which the restriction of liberty occurs. the court should adopt a pragmatic approach taking account of all the circumstances. Crowd control measures resorted to for public order and public safety reasons had to take account of the rights of the individuals and the interests of the community. Such measures fell outside the ambit of Article 5 provided that they were not arbitrary in that they were resorted to in good faith, were proportionate and enforced for no longer than was reasonably necessary. They constituted a restriction of liberty, not a deprivation of it. The police had been engaged in an unusually difficult exercise of crowd control which had as its aim the avoidance of personal injuries and damage to property and the dispersal as quickly as possible of a crowd bent on violence and impeding the police. The police had acted reasonably and properly to prevent serious disorder and violence. The restriction of the claimants’ liberty had not been an arbitrary deprivation of liberty and Article 5 was not applicable.
Lord Neuberger said:
‘The police are under a duty to keep the peace when a riot is threatened, and to take reasonable steps to prevent serious public disorder, especially if it involves violence to individuals and property. Any sensible person living in a modern democracy would reasonably expect to be confined, or at least accept that it was proper that she could be confined, within a limited space by the police, in some circumstances. Thus, if a deranged or drunk person was on the loose with a gun in a building, the police would be entitled, indeed expected, to ensure that, possibly for many hours, members of the public were confined to where they were, even if it was in a pretty small room with a number of other people. Equally, where there are groups of supporters of opposing teams at a football match, the police routinely, and obviously properly, ensure that, in order to avoid violence and mayhem, the two groups are kept apart; this often involves confining one or both of the groups within a relatively small space for a not insignificant period. Or if there is an accident on a motorway, it is common, and again proper, for the police to require drivers and passengers to remain in their stationary motor vehicles, often for more than an hour or two. In all such cases, the police would be confining individuals for their own protection and to prevent violence to people or property.
So, too, as I see it, where there is a demonstration, particularly one attended by a justified expectation of substantial disorder and violence, the police must be expected, indeed sometimes required, to take steps to ensure that such disorder and violence do not occur, or, at least, are confined to a minimum. Such steps must often involve restraining the movement of the demonstrators, and sometimes of those members of the public unintentionally caught up in the demonstration. In some instances, that must involve people being confined to a relatively small space for some time.
In such cases, it seems to me unrealistic to contend that article 5 can come into play at all, provided, and it is a very important proviso, that the actions of the police are proportionate and reasonable, and any confinement is restricted to a reasonable minimum, as to discomfort and as to time, as is necessary for the relevant purpose, namely the prevention of serious public disorder and violence.’
Lord Hope said: ‘I would hold . . that there is room, even in the case of fundamental rights as to whose application no restriction or limitation is permitted by the Convention, for a pragmatic approach to be taken which takes full account of all the circumstances. No reference is made in article 5 to the interests of public safety or the protection of public order as one of the cases in which a person may be deprived of his liberty . . But the importance that must be attached in the context of article 5 to measures taken in the interests of public safety is indicated by article 2 of the Convention, as the lives of persons affected by mob violence may be at risk if measures of crowd control cannot be adopted by the police. This is a situation where a search for a fair balance is necessary if these competing fundamental rights are to be reconciled with each other. The ambit that is given to article 5 as to measures of crowd control must, of course, take account of the rights of the individual as well as the interests of the community. So any steps that are taken must be resorted to in good faith and must be proportionate to the situation which has made the measures necessary.’
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564, [2009] 2 WLR 372, [2009] UKHRR 581, [2009] HRLR 16, [2009] 3 All ER 455
Bailii, HL, Times
European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Austin and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis QBD 23-Mar-2005
The claimants had variously been attending a demonstration in London, or passing through. The police detained them in a cordon for several hours. They sought damages. No unlawful acts were alleged against them.
Held: There was no deprivation . .
Appeal from – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 15-Oct-2007
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment and unlawful detention by the respondent in his policing of a demonstration. They had been held within a police cordon in the streets for several hours to prevent the spread of . .
Cited – Engel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others HL 31-Oct-2007
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of . .
Cited – Guzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .
Cited – McKay v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Oct-2006
The applicant said that his human rights had been infringed under laws which required him to apply to the high court for bail rather than to a magistrate, necessitating a further four day wait before his application for bail was considered. He had . .
Cited – Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .
Cited – Kurt v Turkey ECHR 25-May-1998
The court referred to ‘the fundamental importance of the guarantees contained in Article 5 for securing the right of individuals in a democracy to be free from arbitrary detention at the hands of the authorities’ and to the need to interpret . .
Cited – Foka v Turkey ECHR 24-Jun-2008
. .
Cited – Stefanov v Bulgaria ECHR 22-May-2008
Article 5(1) may apply to deprivations of liberty of even a very short duration. . .
Cited – HM v Switzerland ECHR 26-Feb-2002
. .
Cited – X v Germany ECHR 19-Mar-1981
The Commission had regard to the fact that the purpose for which the children were taken to the police headquarters and kept there for about two hours was to question them, not to arrest or detain them. This led to the conclusion that the action in . .
Cited – N v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2008
(Grand Chamber) The appellant was found after her arrival in this country from Uganda to have an AIDS-defining illness for which she was still receiving treatment. She claimed that the treatment would not be available in Uganda and she would die . .
Cited – Saadi v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Jan-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to detain him for a short period while his asylum claim was being subject to fast-track processing. The decision was made pursuant to a policy under which all asylum claimants . .
Cited – Nielsen v Denmark ECHR 28-Nov-1988
The applicant, a minor, complained about his committal to a child psychiatric ward of a state hospital at his mother’s request. The question was whether this was a deprivation of his liberty in violation of article 5. The applicant said that it was, . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – N v United Kingdom – Press Release ECHR 26-Sep-2007
(Grand Chamber Hearing) . .
Cited – O’Halloran and Francis v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Jun-2007
(Grand Chamber) Each defendant claimed that the obligation imposed on them to name the driver of a motor vehicle caught by a traffic camera prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
Held: The application failed. The nature of the obligation did . .
Cited – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
Cited – Guenat v Switzerland ECHR 10-Apr-1995
Article 5 did not apply to a claim of false imprisonment by the police where they had acted through necessity. . .
Cited – Lawless v Ireland (No 3) ECHR 1-Jul-1961
The Irish Government derogated from article 5 in July 1957 in order to permit detention without charge or trial, and the applicant was detained between July and December 1957. He could have obtained his release by undertaking to observe the law and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Moos and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of the Police of The Metropolis Admn 14-Apr-2011
The claimants, demonstrators at the G20 summit, complained of the police policy of kettling, the containment of a crowd over a period of time, not because they were expected to to behave unlawfully, but to ensure a separation from those who were. . .
Cited – Castle and Others v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 8-Sep-2011
The claimants, all under 17 years old, took a peaceful part in a substantial but disorderly demonstration in London. The police decided to contain the section of crowd which included the claimants. The claimants said that the containment of children . .
Cited – Castle and Others v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 8-Sep-2011
The claimants, all under 17 years old, took a peaceful part in a substantial but disorderly demonstration in London. The police decided to contain the section of crowd which included the claimants. The claimants said that the containment of children . .
Cited – McClure and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis CA 19-Jan-2012
The Commissioner appealed against a decision that certain aspects of its crowd control procedures exercised during a public protest were unlawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The issue came down to whether the commanding officer genuinely held . .
Cited – Welsh Ministers v PJ SC 17-Dec-2018
A patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may be released from compulsory detention in hospital subject to a community treatment order. The question arising on this appeal is whether a patient’s responsible clinician (may impose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Torts – Other, Human Rights
Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.280435
Comments are closed.