Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that [...]and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.
Answer
the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law
Tags
#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that [...]and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.
Answer
?
Tags
#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that [...]and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.
Answer
the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that <span>the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox pr
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.