Pace Act 1984 and Restriction of Liberty ECHR - Essay Example

Topic: Pace Act 1984 and restriction of liberty ECHR Legal issue: What extents can interference with a citizens liberty amounts to a of conduct sufficient to take an officer outside the course of his duties? Re; Walker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] Keywords: False imprisonment; Police detention; Police powers and duties, Unlawful arrest. Introduction ‘Civil and political rights’ govern and provides various rights to ensure maximum protection of inhabitants from any breach or violation by governments, social organizations as well as from others and provided them the rights to take part in political as well as civil life in the society and state irrespective of any discrimination or subjugation. The establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has been historically identified as a major step with respect to provide maximum amount of protection to protect the rights as well as liberty of individuals. UDHR, which has been adopted by ‘General Assembly of the United Nations’ during the year 1948 and been evolved to reduce various conflicting situation after the period of Second World War. However, the issues relating law enforcement officers have been emerged as major concern, the states of global nation’s faces to induce UDHR1. The prime intend of this study in relation to ‘Pace Act 1984 and restriction of liberty ECHR’, critically examine and explore the legal issues related to case of [Walker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis] (2014). Besides, this study, also discuss the understanding regarding the interference with a citizens liberty amounts to a course of conduct sufficient to take an officer outside the course of his duties. Moreover, it worth mentioning that the discussion made in this study through highlighting the relative issues that were been associated in the mentioned case and specifying legal backgrounds that undermine the civil liberty in the states. In this regard, the issues highlighted in this paper also determines the validity of the issues based on the current interests and determine the actual background of the case in the context of civil liberty and responsibility of law enforcement department. Background of the Case: Walker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] Walker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis is the case was over the incidence were police had been called in the occurrence in which plaintiff was associated. In the place of incidence, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis blocked the plaintiff in a doorway and order to remain calm or else he will be arrested. In this case, the plaintiff girlfriend with respect to the violence induced by him on her has made the complaint. The police have visited the place of violent incident and appellant has been taken in the custody however, he was later released. In the provided case the plaintiff was been arrested for assault the police officer while they were executing their respective duty. In this respect, district judge affirmed the fact that police officer are conducting their duty by restricting action of appellant’s in the doorway and does not have any intend to arrest him. Besides, the court affirmed that acquitted was made on the basis of the ground that his act is unlawful and consequently, restricted the office to compelling their duty. However, after two years, appellant appeals to court regarding claiming for the damages with respect his imprisonment, action and malicious action. Apparently, it has been affirmed that by the court that pragmatic approach of the officer was undertaken in order to prevent individual from an unnecessary arrest as victims, in most of this type of cases are likely to withdraw their accusations after the assault events2. The Current Issues are Detention without Arrest and False Imprisonment Human beings having the right to protect their dignity, liberty as well as security and in the in the modem era of globalization, with the continuous evolution over the importance of humankind in order to socialize the environment in which each individual has equal rights in order to appreciate respect for their own security and liberty. An inadequate or less guarantee of security as well as individual liberty, the protection of rights perceived by human beings has been turn out to be an illusory and increasingly vulnerable issues in the recent day context. Moreover, it can be affirmed that efficient guarantee with respect to the liberty as well as security of humanity, individual rights protection are becomes gradually vulnerable as well as misleading. In this regard, arrests and increasing numbers of detentions without any justifiable reasons have become a usual event in the states across different European nations3. Nevertheless, the arrests and numbers of detentions have been emerged irrespective of any legal alleviation available to the accused individual over any particular concern. However, in the context of the various monitoring organs of global nations reflected the scenario of arrests and detentions irrespective of any proper reasonable cause and without any actual legal remedies are been available to the concerned victims. In this context of the unlawful deficiencies with respect to security and liberty, detainees were relatively recognised to have lack of access of lawyers as well as proper communication with the families. Besides, in various instances, detainees deemed to struggle to face ill-treatment both physical and mental. In this regard, it was highly importance of existence of legal rules existence in the international environment in order to take remedial action to get rid of such violation of human rights, which needed to be adhering by prosecutors, and lawyers through aware of the content and behalf effectively to assist the clients4. Correspondently, such event of detention without arrest has been witnessed in most of the democratic nations’ after 2001 September 11, terrorist attack in the United States. The result of such incident had compelled the government to bring noteworthy changes in the legislation to provide maximum protection to inhabitants. In this regard, many of democratic nations’ increasingly focuses to take effective measures to overcome with the rising threats of terrorism in the international context. Accordingly, the most of the democratic countries faces significant challenges regarding how to combat with this serious issue to fight effectively without compromising the human rights and liberty, which is regarded to be essence of democratic nations. Relatively, detention and attest scenario, as has also been recognized in the context of UK economy with the adoption of legislation over anti-terrorism i.e. ‘Terrorism Act of 2000’. Besides, the event of passing the legislation has led arrest various suspected people involved in terrorism in the context of Britain. However, this was not only been the only legislation that has been passed in UK additionally, various other legislative tool are also been developed to combat the threat of international terrorism. Correspondently, the ‘Terrorism Act 2000’has not been anticipated to maintain right to liberty or equality under the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ in case of any particular terrorism related events in the allied nation. Thus, necessary alternation in the legislation is requiring ensuring maximum protection of citizen and any unlawful act. In this regard, during the year 2001 December, ‘Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act’ (ATCSA) was adopted by UK parliament in order to empower the British security and deal with broad area of terrorism, which includes investigations, detentions, as well as surveillance of terrorism. According to section 4 of Act, the law created new provision through empowering the ‘Minister of Interior’ detention of non-British citizens who suspected of being an international terrorist and threaten the security of the nation. Besides, the terrorist to be expatriated however, in case of impossibility, a foreign national suspected to be involved in terrorism events could be indeterminately detained without any trial or charges5. In this regard, it has been evidenced that in between the year 2001 to 2003, 16 foreign people are been arrested based on ATCSA. Apparently, out of this 16 foreign people who were arrested two of them are released and during the 2004 out of them, nine appealed regarding their detention where they disputed with the legislation of ATCSA. Furthermore, during the year 2004 December, justice that deal with the majority of the provisions of law related to detention of people has signifies the fact that the people have suspected with the involvement of terrorism need to be rescinded. In this regard, it has been affirmed that this has led to create discrimination amid foreign and UK citizens with having the provision of administrative detention against the foreign nations people and thereby hamper the aspects of human dignity and liberty. Moreover, in this case it has been recognized that justices failed to provide proper dignity to the arrested people and they are having less measures over such detainees, rather they have to face the administrative detention, which includes electronic tagging, surveillance orders among others6.Similarly, the case of [Walker v Commissioner of the Police] was regarded as the fault imprisonment, as the appellant after his imprisonment appeals to court over the damages that he has to face because of the false imprisonment, assault as well as malicious prosecution. Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 The objectives behind inducement of ‘Anti-Terrorism Crime and security Act 2001’ by amending ‘Terrorism Act 2000’ is to ensure maximum protection of citizens from terrorism. Apparently, to shepherd this power by the ‘House of Lord’, the government has develop various concessions, as this bill violates the provision of Article 5 of the ECHR under the Human Rights Act 19987. Since the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, group of individuals was imprisoned for three years in highly protected detention facilities and psychological health institutions. Besides, it has been evidenced in various instances imprisonment of the people is been conducted without having the actual causes of accusation. Apparently, the individuals who were accusative with such imprisonment they lawyers are been appointed by special security-cleared units to provide the scope to access information about the convictions. However, they were not having the proper access regarding the proper information regarding the imprisoned. On the other hand, they can also allowed to bring their own legal prosecutors but their legal representative does not granted the proper access regarding the reason behind their clients detentions8. The Legal Issues Power of arrest legally requires proper ground of suspicion of commitment of criminal offence the people before arrest or detain. Additionally, it has been affirmed that Article 5 of the ECHR event during the incident of any offence does not quantify the approach of arrest and detention, which allow person to bring person to legal authority. However, this has also empowered police officer to make detention to any person from the infinite period with respect to feared breach of harmony and peace. This has significantly resulted to arise the legal issue rated to the security and liberty of the people and resulted to breach in the provision of peace for detention and interrupts the convention by misusing the power of arrest and detention9. According to a recent survey on the comparative legal obligation, it has been perceived that the number of individuals held without charge is significantly higher than the detention activities by the law and enforcement departments exist in the other global nations’. A brief and clear explanation of the scenario in the detention without legal charge has been provided clearly by the following illustration10. The above-depicted representation reflects the number of days an individual imprisoned without any charge of their detention, which has been evidenced in twelve different nations. Apparently, it has been evidenced those detention days without any valid allegation is 28 days in the context of the UK, which is relatively higher than the other nations. Moreover, in this regard, the current legal issues or laws in the UK can be widely accepted as a major set of factors leading to the increasing detention period and faulty imprisonment without any charges. In this regard, the basic values of the democratic have been significantly hindered due to the implementation of different legal issues that undermine fundamental rights and freedom of individuals within the nation11. In relation to the legal obligations under the Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000, governs the pre-charge imprisonment of individuals arrested on the suspicion ground of being involved in various activities related to terrorism. According to the Schedule, legal limitations during the period of time a group or individual can be imprisoned prior to accusation of running from the particular time of arrest. After the detention, accused transferred to the enforcement office and the detention reviewed by an individual or group of enforcement officers with the involvement in the investigation process. In this context, the review of the officers may approve continued imprisonment of individual or group, if only the person is satisfied to engaged in the criminal activities in which detention is necessary in order to obtain relevant evidence associated with a particular crime. The decision of extending imprisonment duration can also be taken by the officers only if they are satisfied that it is necessary to perceive relevant evidence and/or to make decisions regarding the deportation or accusing the suspect(s) associated with the particular criminal event12. Accused individual or group up to 28 days in the UK legal provision has been compelled during the 2006. However, as the provision is regarded to significantly violating the human dignity and liberty various UK legal authorities continuously make their significant afford to make the amendment in provision, as it has been detected that the period of detention without having any change in the UK legal system are comparatively higher i.e. 28 days than other nations’ respectively. Moreover, the detention without charge was reduced to 14 days from its 28 days duration, which in certain cases can be further, be increased up to more seven days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 if required. Apparently, it has been noted that in the context of UK provision, with respect to criminal events related to terrorism, the enforcement policy tends to imprison individuals in four days detention period. Although, major allegation has been emerged against the law enforcement policies of ‘pre-charge detention’, the recent legal administration in the UK witnessed conjure challenges in various case in the courts [Walker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis]. Correspondingly, arbitrarily the enforcement of imprisoning individuals in the context of the UK legal system tends to contradict rule of law and is highly prohibited by the human rights divisions of the United Nations. On the contrary, detention, exile as well as arrest arbitrary in not been subjected as per the Article 9 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Besides, it has also been affirmed in the article that no individuals should be detained or arrested on the ground of pre-charge regarding any suspicious criminal events. Furthermore, the provision affirmed that irrespective of any circumstances, no individuals should be deprived from their freedom and liberty and remains exiled without having any allegation, which violates legal statute of a particular nation. Additionally, the Article also highlighted the aspect that the governmental administration upholds minimum authority to deprive any individuals from their liberty without an appropriate process of legal obligations13. Correspondingly in this relation, the Article 9 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further affirmed the fact that every human being are having the right with respect to their liberty and security and correspondently no individual are subject to face detention or every arrest arbitrary. Moreover, article also affirmed the person who has been arrested for his/her wrongful act must need to informed regarding the same prior to their arrest related to the reasons of taking effective charges against them14. However, in the case of[Walker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis] Walker has not been justified by the police regarding the reason of arrest prior to his arrest. The section 9 (1) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirms that each individual of the nation possesses to have their basic rights and liberties. According to the provisions, none of the individuals in the State are subjected to experience any arbitrary detention or shall be deprived of their basic liberty except certain ground in accordance with legal procedure established by the governing law16. On the other hand, the article also stated the fact that any individual who were been deprived from his/her liberty with the event of the arrest or detention, must be entitle regarding to take proceedings into the court. This will ensure the detention to justify his/her standpoint and led the court to decide regarding, if his/her act is criminal offence or not. Nevertheless, the one who are been arrested regardless, to his/her act is unlawful they must be enforced the right to be compensated15. State Responsibility to Act in terms of the Notion of Persons Security and Liberty With the event to increase in the terrorism in the international context deprivation of rights and individual liberty has been identified as one of the major aspect due to the increasing allegation of pre-charge detention of individuals due to other accusation for different criminal circumstances. From the regulatory perspective of the state, the notion of upholding rights of individual with respect to liberty and security has been govern with various provisions that include Human rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Besides, such legal entities emphasis over wider concept as well as background regarding providing the notion of liberty and security along with the various mitigating the allegation that compelled in the nation that is related to unlawful arrests or any types of pre-charge detention16. The Notion of Arbitrariness and Lawfulness in the context of Pre-Charge Detention Human Rights Committee with respect to the ‘principle of legality’ affirmed that it violated if any individual arrest or detain has not been clearly defined in any domestic nation legislation. With due emphasis on the understanding gained from both conventional and recently amended policies, it is quite evident that the process of arbitrariness has become one of the awful experiences for individuals to perceive there, respective rights and liberties and/or freedom17. Despite the differences of terms, in the treaties includes International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, American Convention on Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights affirms the aspect that liberty and security of the people must in all respect needed to be carried out based on the law. According to an in-depth understanding of legal provision, it can be affirmed that deprivation of liberty irrespective of the dissimilar backgrounds of the cases should be appropriately performed with the stipulated principles within the law of legality. The principles associated with the article 5 in the European Convention the statement deprivation of rights and liberty of individuals must not include any type of arbitrary related aspects that restricts individuals to avert being exile from his/her respective rights. According to the statement, the definition of arbitrariness is a wider notion, which makes the international organs accountable to monitoring factors that encourage the domestic legal system along with their application of unreasonableness in various criminal events18. Detention without Arrest is a legal Issues of Current Interest In accordance to the current legal law of counter terrorism the police authority have allow to detent or arrest any individual who were suspected of being engaged in terrorism activities without any warrant. Apparently, the one who is been arrested, can be detained in the custody without any charge for the period of twenty-eight days in which police obtain, analyze and obtain necessary information regarding his/her criminal proceedings. This, provision of UK legal system has emerged as critical issue in the global context, as law violates the provisions of human safety and liberty clause, which reflects that no individual in the global context will be exposed to any arbitrary arrest as well as detention19. Detention without Arrest is a legal Issues of Current Interest relation the Case of Walker v. Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis Read More