The purpose of the right to liberty under the ECHR, Article 5

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently held there to be no infringement of the right to liberty under the ECHR, Article 5 in the case of Austin v United Kingdom (2012) app.no.39692/09 (hereafter ‘Austin (ECtHR)’). This will come as a relief to sections of the law enforcement communities across the Council of Europe member states as well as being a vindication of the outcome if not the exact reasoning of the House of Lords (HL) in Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5 (hereafter ‘Austin (HL)’). This analysis will present the facts and reasoning of the domestic judgments and that of the ECtHR before arguing that the judgements err in their application of the law and set a dangerous and needless precedent.
LanguageEnglish
Article number5
Number of pages5
JournalWeb Journal of Current Legal Issues
Volume3
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

ECHR
human rights
Council of Europe
legal usage
metropolis
law enforcement
chamber
police
community

Keywords

  • liberty
  • human rights
  • ECHR
  • law enforcement

Cite this

@article{bd218a8aee054038ad215b969d7718ad,
title = "The purpose of the right to liberty under the ECHR, Article 5",
abstract = "The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently held there to be no infringement of the right to liberty under the ECHR, Article 5 in the case of Austin v United Kingdom (2012) app.no.39692/09 (hereafter ‘Austin (ECtHR)’). This will come as a relief to sections of the law enforcement communities across the Council of Europe member states as well as being a vindication of the outcome if not the exact reasoning of the House of Lords (HL) in Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5 (hereafter ‘Austin (HL)’). This analysis will present the facts and reasoning of the domestic judgments and that of the ECtHR before arguing that the judgements err in their application of the law and set a dangerous and needless precedent.",
keywords = "liberty, human rights, ECHR, law enforcement",
author = "Genevieve Lennon",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
journal = "Web Journal of Current Legal Issues",
issn = "1360-1326",

}

The purpose of the right to liberty under the ECHR, Article 5. / Lennon, Genevieve.

In: Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, Vol. 3, 5, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The purpose of the right to liberty under the ECHR, Article 5

AU - Lennon, Genevieve

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently held there to be no infringement of the right to liberty under the ECHR, Article 5 in the case of Austin v United Kingdom (2012) app.no.39692/09 (hereafter ‘Austin (ECtHR)’). This will come as a relief to sections of the law enforcement communities across the Council of Europe member states as well as being a vindication of the outcome if not the exact reasoning of the House of Lords (HL) in Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5 (hereafter ‘Austin (HL)’). This analysis will present the facts and reasoning of the domestic judgments and that of the ECtHR before arguing that the judgements err in their application of the law and set a dangerous and needless precedent.

AB - The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently held there to be no infringement of the right to liberty under the ECHR, Article 5 in the case of Austin v United Kingdom (2012) app.no.39692/09 (hereafter ‘Austin (ECtHR)’). This will come as a relief to sections of the law enforcement communities across the Council of Europe member states as well as being a vindication of the outcome if not the exact reasoning of the House of Lords (HL) in Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5 (hereafter ‘Austin (HL)’). This analysis will present the facts and reasoning of the domestic judgments and that of the ECtHR before arguing that the judgements err in their application of the law and set a dangerous and needless precedent.

KW - liberty

KW - human rights

KW - ECHR

KW - law enforcement

UR - http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/2012/issue3/pdf/lennon3.pdf

M3 - Article

VL - 3

JO - Web Journal of Current Legal Issues

T2 - Web Journal of Current Legal Issues

JF - Web Journal of Current Legal Issues

SN - 1360-1326

M1 - 5

ER -