O’Hara v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Oct 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award
The applicant had been arrested and interviewed for over six days, before being released without charge. The reasonableness of the suspicion on which an arrest had to be based formed an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention, and terrorist investigations were particularly difficult. The suspicion against the applicant reached the required level being based on specific information that he was involved in the murder and the deprivation of his liberty was to confirm or dispel that suspicion. The delay in bringing him before a court was a breach of his rights.
J-P Costa, P and Judges L Loucaides, P. Kuris, F. Tulkens, K. Jungwiert, Sir Nicolas Bratza and H S Greve Section Registrar S. Dolle
Times 13-Nov-2001, [2001] ECHR 591, 37555/97, [2001] ECHR 598
Bailii, Bailii
Human Rights
Appeal fromO’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 21-Nov-1996
The plaintiff had been arrested on the basis of the 1984 Act. The officer had no particular knowledge of the plaintiff’s involvement, relying on a briefing which led to the arrest.
Held: A reasonable suspicion upon which an arrest was founded . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.166599