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 demonstration.
Held: The appeal failed.
The fundamental principle underlying article 5 is the need to protect the individual from arbitrary detention, and an essential part of that protection is timely judicial control, but at the same time article 5 must not be interpreted in such a way as would make it impracticable for the police to perform their duty to maintain public order and protect the lives and property of others. These twin requirements are not contradictory but complementary
Judges:
Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Dyson
Citations:
[2017] UKSC 9, [2017] WLR(D) 101, [2017] 2 WLR 824, [2017] 1 AC 25
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Albert v Lavin HL 3-Dec-1981
An off duty and out of uniform police officer attempted to restrain the defendant jumping ahead of a bus queue. The defendant struggled, and continued to do so even after being told that of the officer’s status. He said he had not believed that he . .
Appeal from – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2014
The claimants said that the restrictive tactics used by the respondent when policing crowds at a royal wedding.
Held: The appeals failed. The police had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the claimants were likely to cause a breach of the . .
Cited – Steel and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1998
The several applicants had been arrested in different circumstances and each charged with breach of the peace contrary to common law. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the court can bind over a Defendant to keep the peace, if the Defendant . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
At First Instance – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 18-Jul-2012
The claimants challnged the lawfulness of decisions made by the respondent as to the policing of events surrounding the Royal Wedding in April 2011. . .
Not followed – Ostendorf v Germany ECHR 7-Mar-2013
The applicant was registered on a German database as a person prepared to use violence in the context of sports events. He travelled with a group of others from Bremen to Frankfurt in order to attend a football match. They were kept under police . .
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 – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
Cited – Brogan and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Nov-1988
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 . .
Incomplete – Jecius v Lithuania ECHR 31-Jul-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of Art. 5-1 as regards the applicant
The applicant complained of violation of his article 5 rights . .
Cited – Nicol and Selvanayagam v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jan-2001
(Admissibility) The applicants took part in an anti-fishing protest at an angling match on 28 May 1994. Their aim was to sabotage the match by throwing twigs in the water close to the anglers’ hooks so as to disturb the surface, while other . .
Cited – Schwabe and MG v Germany ECHR 1-Dec-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.575310
