ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
The four applicants were arrested and detained under prevention of terrorism legislation on suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. They were released without charge after periods between four and six days and without having been brought before a magistrate.
Held: In each case there had been a violation of article 5.3 but not article 5.1. There was an intention to bring them before a court if sufficient and usable evidence had been obtained during the police investigation following their arrest, and this was sufficient to satisfy the requirement in article 5.1(c) that the detention was for the purpose of bringing them before the court. There was no reason to believe that the police investigation was not in good faith or that their detention was for any other reason than to further the investigation by confirming or dispelling the suspicions which grounded their arrest. In other words, the police were not required to intend to take the applicants to court in the event of there being insufficient evidence after investigation to proceed against them.
Citations:
11209/84, [1988] ECHR 24, 11234/84, (1988) 11 EHRR 117, 11266/84
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
See Also – Brogan and Others v United Kingdom (Article 50) ECHR 30-May-1989
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) – Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient. . .
Cited – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis SC 15-Feb-2017
The claimants had wanted to make a peaceful anti-monarchist demonstration during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They complained that the actions of the respondent police infringed their human rights by preventing that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.165024
