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 been remanded after admitting an armed robbery, though the police had not objected to bail. Because the offence was one scheduled by the 2000 Act under the 1996 Act.
Held: The provisions were not incompatible with the Convention. The magistrate was in a position to examine other elements such as the lawfulness of his detention and the existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion of having committed the offence. There was no possible arbitrariness or abuse to require an application to the High Court which had in fact heard the application within a day. As to article 5: ‘Article 5 of the Convention is, together with articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of an individual and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty.’
Times 30-Oct-2006, 543/03,  ECHR 820, (2007) 44 EHRR 41
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Northern Ireland
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246586