Effects of Article 5 in the UK - Essay Example

Article 5 Effects on Crime War in the United Kingdom Course Institution Tutor Date Effects of Article 5 in the UK Introduction To say that article 5 hinders the fight against crime in U.K. will be out of order. This paper argues against the statement that the article 5 hinders the fight against crime in the United Kingdom. Instead, article 5 has all the provisions that facilitate the fight against crime. The article provides that every person is entitled to the right to liberty and security. Any person arrested as a suspect or having committed a crime is entitled to information on the reason for his arrest. Every person arrested and his or her freedom to liberty is deprived shall be given an opportunity to launch his or her case in the court of law where the matter shall be settled in a quick manner. If a person is deprived the provisions of article 5, he or she shall have the right to ask for compensation. Limitations to article 5 Saying that the article does not derail the process of fighting crime in the U.K. will be proper. The article only serves to protect the rights of an individual to security and liberty. People are entitled to be liberal and secure. The right in itself protects innocent individuals against aggression from fellow individuals hence maintaining law and order is its main priority. It allows for individual rights to liberty while at the same time guarding against commitment of a crime through its provision. Limited means that a person can be denied the rights under the provisions of article 51. It means that there are circumstances where deprivation of liberty is deemed very lawful. However, such events are also guarded within the law to ensure that they are not taken advantage of illegally to dehumanize other human beings by law enforcement agents. In the case of any deprivation to the provisions of article 5, the law stipulates that such instances should be lawful and necessary. Such a period should not run longer than expected in the case of liberty restrictions. The guidelines to these provisions are set forth in article 5 (2) to 5 (5). Any limitation to the article should follow the guidelines stated under the articles. For example, a suspected terrorism offender can be denied this freedom for longer than is necessary so that the law enforcers can guarantee security to other persons. Under the terrorism prevention and investigation strategies, article 5 imposes significant restrictions to suspects of terror crimes. The law also creates harsh restrictions to a person convicted of terror crimes hence his or her rights to liberty are very slim creating a reduction in crime level2. Another example is when it is made compulsory for a person to stay in a mental hospital to receive treatment. In such a case, law enforcers make sure that this person does not commit a crime or infringe other people rights to security and liberty. Article 5 does not deprive people of their rights to movement. It may be hard to distinct between when a person is limited to movement and when a person is restricted to his right to liberty. The case of Guzzardi v Italy at least helped put a distinction that is nearly one of degree rather than nature or substance. For example, in R (on Gillan’s application) v Sec3. of states for the home department 2004, the house of the lord concluded that the liberty is not infringed in a case where a person has been stopped for a search under terrorism allegations. At the Echhr in Gillan v U.K., the court asserted that under the conditions of the search where the person is restrained in one position for a search and then subjected to arrest, detention and criminally charged for the refusal, such a case is a deprivation of the right to liberty. There are several cases that act as precedents to breaching the rights found in article 5. The first example is when the law completely deprives a person to rights to bail due to conviction of a serious crime initially. It is found in the case of Caballero v United Kingdom 2000. The second case is when an elderly woman diagnosed with a chronic disease was held for 14 hours for refusal to cooperate with the police officers by refusing to give them her address and name. The woman was restrained, and her rights to article 5 infringed within the stipulations of the same article. The reason cited the law was because it would have been a crime to infect other people with a chronic disease affecting the woman. This example is found in the files of Vasileva v Denmark 20034. In the third example, a person was put under 18 hours’ curfew per day in his house for terror crimes without having been charged with any offence. The courts deemed it right to impose the curfew so that if in case the person had any terror connections, other persons could be entitled to the rights of article 5 such as security. Terror acts are criminal acts, and the case is found in the files of Secretary of State for Home Department v JJ & Others 2007. Article 5 (4) give a person a room for appealing in a court of law or an independent tribunal so that his or her detention conditions can be weighed again and reviewed. The above privilege does not extend to prisoners who have been convicted or given fixed amounts of sentences5. It can apply to life prisoners once their tariff periods expire. That is when they clock minimum amount of time they have to spend in prison. Article 5 has no provisions for the conditions detention is carried out. When a person already detained is placed under maximum detention, article 5 has no provisions stipulating that his or her rights are infringed even further. Article 5 ensures that criminal acts of unauthorized entries to the U.K. are eliminated. If a person is caught, or suspected to have intentions of unauthorized entry, he or she can be detained. At situations where a person is being deported or extradited, their rights to article 5 are infringed under the limitations clause. The law within the clause also stipulates that such actions must be within the provisions of the law. The conditions must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. All these instances prove that the article 5 is more to curbing crime and still guaranteeing individuals of their rights to liberty and security6. Article 5 relations to other articles This is another area that contrasts the argument that article 5 paves the way for crime in the U.K. Article 5 relates to other articles with an aim to fighting crime and safeguarding the rights of people. For example, article 5 is closely linked to article 6 which stipulates that all individuals have a right to a fair trial. An individual deprivation of his or her liberty right/freedom, only the courts can determine the cause. If a person is deprived of the right to liberty, that person will not be able to enjoy other rights7. Effects to state behavior Article 5 regulates the state behavior to its citizens. The state is mandated with the task of paying proper attention to human rights to liberty and security. However, the state is not prevented from acting to reduce crime in the U.K. its purpose in regulating the government is to instill check system that those with authority to others do not abuse their authority. It extends to safeguard all citizens against fellow citizens who create insecurity and or injure the rights of others. Note that, through the limitations of article 5 and the courts intervention, all guarding rails have been installed to ensure that even when the rights to liberty and security are safeguarded, there is a balance in fighting crime. The article ensures that there are very few, if any, harms to individuals8. Other ways article 5 helps fight crime The article is in agreement with liberty deprivation of any parent or guardian who does not teach their children not to commit crimes. The parents or guardians risk deprivation of liberty under the limitations of article 5. It safeguards police and police acts. The article only supports other articles in their functions but does not interfere with how their functions are executed. For example, article 5 does not interfere with the stop and search powers found in article 8 and 14. In other instances, the article does not prohibit the detention of children for immigration purposes. In such a way, it helps fight crime because it protects foreigners from coming to the U.K. and committing crimes. This law has no significant changes in the way the U.K9. Courts conduct their exercise of criminal law. The law acts to an advantage in curbing crime by facilitating mutual understanding between U.K. judges and the judges at the European court of human rights. In consideration to policy formulation and development, the act has helped the U.K. in a positive manner to develop policies that help fight crime. For example, the central government formed a policy indicating that any amount of crime is happening is unacceptable. Chahal v the United Kingdom reveals an instance where article 5 aids the courts in formulation of positive policies towards curbing crime10. Conclusion This paper argues against the statement that the article 5 hinders crime fighting in the United Kingdom. There are various ways in which the article helps in fighting crime. The intentions of the laws are to safeguard individual’s right to security and liberty. There are limitations to this article. These limitations are more of exemptions to the application of the law. The limitations allow for windows where a person’s right to liberty can be denied so that crime can be stopped. Reference List Eistarmer, K. (2001). Positive obligations under the Convention. In understanding human rights principles. Hard publishers, Oxford. Eilsen, T. (2007, June 8). Home office, home secretary sign vital anti-trafficking convention The New York Times. Retrieved (2013, March 2) from hppt://www.800padutch.333/ch.com Kimarny, Y. H. (1999). Crossing judicial boundaries in quest of human rights protection (political dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertation & Theses database. Kingsner, W. H. (1997). The fundamental freedoms. Springfield, MA, Merrian-Webster. Lasson, N. B. (1937). The History and Development of the fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johns Hopkins University Press. Labunski, R. E. (2006). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford University Press. McGuirk, L. & O’Neill, H. (2010). Ill-Treatment sanctions to public authorities. Houghton Mifflin, MA United Kingdom. (1998). In T.L. Gall (Ed.). World mark encyclopaedia of culture and human rights impact to daily life (vol. 3, pp. 320-340). Detroit, M, Gale Research Yahoo Global Justice. (2012). Orton group limited: UK justice administration. Retrieved (2013, March 3) from http://justice. Uk /yahoo.com /q/pr?s=ORN.AX. Yrojala, H. (2001, October 17). The Convention formulation process in the UK. London News, p. 12. Read More