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 peace, and the arrests and holding for court were not unnecessary.
Held: The decision was upheld, but for differing reasons.
It was well established in the Strasbourg jurisprudence that the words ‘for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority’ govern all the limbs of article 5.1(c) and that English courts should accept that interpretation. It was ‘an irresistible inference that the officers who arrested and detained the [appellants] appreciated that, if only by reference to domestic law, the [appellants] could not be lawfully detained beyond the point at which it was reasonably practicable to take them before the magistrates’ court’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Lord Justice Leveson, and, Lord Justice Aikens
Citations:
[2014] EWCA Civ 3, [2014] 2 Cr App R 4, [2014] WLR(D) 30, [2014] HRLR 11, [2014] 1 WLR 2152, [2014] Crim LR 681
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 by:
Appeal from – 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.
Police, Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.520122