Grand Chamber – The applicants complained that their restriction within a police cordon (a measure known as ‘kettling’) for up to seven hours during the course of a demonstration in central London amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach of Article 5-1 of the Convention.
Held: Public order containment for several hours did not to infringe article 5. In reaching its conclusions it could take into account the type and manner of implementation of the measure in question and the fact that the implementation of restrictions on freedom of movement or liberty were in the interests of the common good. It noted that it did not consider that: ‘Commonly occurring restrictions on movement, so long as they are rendered unavoidable as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the authorities and are necessary to avert a real risk of serious injury or damage, and are kept to a minimum required for that purpose can properly be described as ‘deprivations of liberty’.’
‘ . . article 5(1) is not concerned with mere restrictions on liberty of movement, which are governed by article 2 of Protocol No 4. In order to determine whether someone has been ‘deprived of his liberty’ within the meaning of article 5(1), the starting point must be his concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question. The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not of nature or substance.’
Francoise Tulkens, P
(2012) 55 EHRR 14, [2012] Crim LR 544, 32 BHRC 618, 39692/09, [2012] ECHR 459
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5-1
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Wright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .
Cited – Wright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
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.
Human Rights, Police
Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.452268