CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 octobre 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law October 1994 Murray v. the United Kingdom - 14310/88 Judgment 28.10.1994 [GC] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-c Bringing before competent legal authority Reasonable suspicion Arrest and detention in Northern Ireland of a person suspected of being a terrorist: no violation Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Respect for private life Entry into and search of the person's home for the purpose of effecting the arrest: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GENERAL APPROACH Account taken of special nature of terrorist crime, the threat it poses to democratic society and exigencies of dealing with it. II.   ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   "Reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence" Not decisive that domestic law provided for honest, rather than reasonable, suspicion — "reasonable suspicion" presupposes existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer — level of "suspicion" required not the same as for bringing a charge and may be affected by length of deprivation of liberty at risk (maximum 4 hours) — what is "reasonable" depends on all the circumstances —   notwithstanding difficulties inherent in dealing with terrorist crime, Court had to be furnished with at least some facts capable of satisfying it that arrested person was reasonably suspected of having committed alleged offence — findings of fact by domestic courts in proceedings brought by first applicant, considered to be material — elements relied on by Government in present case did provide plausible and objective basis for "reasonable suspicion". B.   "Purpose of bringing [the person] before the competent legal authority" Findings of fact as to proper purpose of arrest had been made by domestic courts after hearing witnesses — no cogent elements produced in proceedings before Convention institutions which could lead Court to depart from those findings — first applicant neither charged nor brought before a court — but existence of purpose must be considered independently of its achievement — could be assumed that, had suspicions been confirmed, first applicant would have been charged and brought before a court. Practice of arrest and detention by one authority (Army) and, if suspicion confirmed, preferring of charges by another authority (police) — not decisive, provided purpose is genuine. Conclusion : no violation (fourteen votes to four). III.   ARTICLE 5 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION Sufficiency of the content and promptness of information conveyed to arrested person to be assessed according to special features of each case — reasons for arrest not sufficiently indicated when first applicant taken into custody, but brought to her attention during subsequent interrogation — interval of a few hours between arrest and interrogation did not fall outside constraints of time imposed by notion of promptness. Conclusion : no violation (thirteen votes to five). IV.   ARTICLE 5 § 5 OF THE CONVENTION No violation of paragraphs 1 or 2 of Article 5 having been found, no issue arose under paragraph 5. Conclusion : no violation (thirteen votes to five). V.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   "In accordance with the law" Impugned measures (of entry and search; of recording and retaining personal details, including a photograph of first applicant) each had a basis in domestic law — no reason, on material before Court, for not finding condition satisfied. B.   Legitimate aim Prevention of crime. C.   Necessity in a democratic society Responsibility of an elected government to protect citizens and institutions against organised terrorism, and special problems involved in arrest and detention of persons suspected of terrorist-linked crimes: affect fair balance to be struck between exercise by individual of right under Article 8 § 1 and necessity for State under Article 8 § 2 to take effective measures for prevention of terrorist crime — conditions of extreme tension under which such arrests in Northern Ireland have to be carried out — means employed by authorities as regards entry and search not disproportionate to aim pursued — same conclusion as regards recording and retaining of personal details. Conclusion : no violation (fifteen votes to three). VI.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Claims as to arrest, detention and lack of information about reasons for arrest (Article 5 §§ 1 and 2) Under Convention scheme of protection of right to liberty and security of person, the lex specialis as regards entitlement to a remedy is Article 5 § 4 — no complaint made by first applicant under Article   5 § 4 — no cause to examine whether less strict requirements of Article 13 complied with. B.   Claim as to entry and search (Article 8) Article 13 requires provision of a domestic remedy allowing competent national authority both to deal with substance of relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief in meritorious cases — remedy available to first applicant satisfied those conditions — her feeble prospects of success did not detract from effectiveness of remedy for purpose of Article 13. C.   Claims as to taking and retention of a photograph and personal details (Article 8) Article 13 does not go so far as to guarantee remedy allowing first applicant to have challenged content of domestic law — for the rest, effective remedies were available to her to raise claim of non‑compliance with applicable domestic law. Conclusion : not necessary to examine under Article 13 as regards point   VI.A claims and, for the rest, no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes