Search
document

Document text Analytics

MURRAY v. the UNITED KINGDOMPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: February 17, 1993

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

MURRAY v. the UNITED KINGDOMPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: February 17, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY

The majority of the Commission has found no violation of

Article 8 of the Convention. I consider that because of the particular

facts in this case the issue arising under that Article are

indissolubly linked with the issues under Article 5 para. 1 of the

Convention, in relation to which there has been a finding of violation.

The detention of the first applicant was not based on a

"reasonable suspicion" that she had committed an offence. It follows

that all of the surrounding circumstances - entry into her home,

recording and retention of personal details, photographing - suffered

from this underlying flaw. In the absence of a reasonable suspicion

that the first applicant had committed an offence, these other measures

that were taken against her cannot be regarded as necessary in a

democratic society for the prevention of crime.

I have accordingly voted for a finding of violation of Article 8

of the Convention.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

28.09.88 Introduction of application

24.10.88 Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

05.09.89 Commission's decision to give

notice of application to the

respondent Government and to

invite the parties to submit

written observations on

admissibility and merits

07.02.90 Government's observations

11.04.90 Applicants' observations

07.09.90 Commission's decision to invite the

parties to submit comments on the

significance for the present case of

the Court's Fox, Campbell and Hartley

judgment

31.10.90 Applicants' comments

24.11.90 Government's comments

03.09.91 Commission's decision to hold a

hearing

10.12.91 Hearing on admissibility and merits,

the parties being represented as

follows:

Government:

Mr. H. Llewellyn, Agent

Mr. N. Bratza, QC, Counsel

Mr. R. Weatherup, Counsel

Three Government advisers attended

Applicants:

Mr. R. Weir, SC, Counsel

Mr. S. Tracey, Counsel

Mr. P. Madden, Solicitor

10.12.91 Commission's deliberations and

decision to declare application

partially admissible

Examination of the merits

17.01.92 Parties invited to submit further

written observations on the merits

and information

14.04.92 Government's observations

09.02.93 Commission's deliberations on the

merits and on the text of its

Article 31 Report. Final votes taken.

17.02.93 Adoption of Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant