OPINION OF MRS. G. H. THUNE joined by MR. I. CABRAL BARRETO

     I have voted for a violation of Article 5 para. 5, but have not

found a violation of Article 5 para. 1.

     The applicant was initially detained on the basis of a decision

by the Poole Magistrates' Court.  On appeal the Divisional Court found

that the previous decision lacked sufficient legal support under

English law and accordingly ordered the applicant's release.

     It is true that the Divisional Court did not explicitly address

the question of lawfulness in relation to Article 5 para. 1 of the

Convention.  It did however, carefully consider whether the decision

to detain had a sufficient legal basis in English law.

     The interpretation and application of national law is mainly the

responsibility of national courts, the task of the Convention organ

being of a supervisory nature.

     The intention and structure of Article 5 is such that it calls

for a possibility for review of the lawfulness (Article 5 para. 4) of

detention at national level. This was in fact what was provided for in

the applicant's case.  He was able to challenge the legal basis for his

detention and was even successful in doing so.

     It would in my view undermine the idea of Article 5 para. 4 if

the Convention organs were to disregard the conclusions by the

Divisional Court by making their own assessment of whether or not the

original decision to detain was lawful, i.e. complied with English law.

     Accordingly, I find the decision by the Divisional Court a

sufficient ground for a right to compensation under Article 5 para. 5

     I consider this to be consistent with the case-law referred to

by Mr. Marxer in his dissenting opinion, and have accordingly voted in

favour of finding a violation of Article 5 para. 5.

                                                 (Or. English)

         PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING