Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).
Answer
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).
Answer
?

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).
Answer
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c). Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arres

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.