BROGAN, COYLE, MCFADDEN and TRACEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOMPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: May 14, 1987
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION
Sir Basil Hall
I agree with the majority of the Commission that the
applicants' arrest and detention was justified under Article 5
para. 1 (c) of the Convention. However, I am unable to share the
opinion that there has been a violation of Article 5 paras. 3 and 5 in
the cases of the applicants BROGAN and COYLE.
I too hold the view that, for the reasons given in para. 106
of the Commission's Report, the requirement of promptness in Article 5
para. 3 may operate differently in a case in which, as in the present
cases, a person is detained on reasonable suspicion of being a person
concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of
terrorism from the way in which it operates in a case in which a
person has been detained on a reasonable suspicion of having committed
an ordinary criminal offence.
In the four cases before the Commission, the Commission has
concluded that four days 6 hours and four days 11 hours satisfied the
requirement of promptness; but that five days 11 hours and six days
16 hours did not.
I do not agree with this conclusion. The legislature of the
respondent State has provided that, in cases of a reasonable
suspicion, a person who has been concerned in terrorism may be
detained for 48 hours, but the Secretary of state may, in any
particular case, extend the period by a further period or periods
specified by him, the further period or periods not to exceed five
days in all. Having regard to the need to strike a balance between
the interests of the individual and the general interest of the
community, I do not consider that the legislature has prescribed an
obviously excessive period.
Each of the applicants was initially detained for a period of
48 hours. The Secretary of state extended the period by five days,
making the total permissible period seven days. Each of the
applicants was released within the permissible period as soon as it
became apparent that no charges could be preferred against him.
I conclude that in these circumstances the requirement of
promptness was satisfied in the cases of all four applicants and that
in consequence there was no violation of either paragraph 3 or
paragraph 5 of Article 5 in any of the cases.
I agree that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the
Convention.
A P P E N D I X I
History of the Proceedings
Date Item
_______________________________________________________________________
18 October 1984 (Brogan) Introduction of the applications
22 October 1984 (Coyle)
22 November 1984 (McFadden)
8 February 1985 (Tracey)
23 October 1984 (Brogan) Registration of the applications
26 October 1984 (Coyle)
27 November 1984 (McFadden)
11 February 1985 (Tracey)
Examination of admissibility
11 March 1985 Commission's deliberations and
decision to invite the Government to
submit observations on the
admissibility and merits of the
applications
30 July 1985 Government's observations
6 September 1985 Applicants' observations in reply
9 December 1985 Decision to invite the parties to a
joint oral hearing
11 July 1986 Joinder of the applications and
joint hearing on admissibility
and merits
11 July 1986 Decision to declare the application
admissible.
Examination of the merits
11 July 1986 Commission's deliberations on the
merits
17 December 1986 Government's supplementary
observations
6 May 1987 Commission's deliberations on the
merits and final votes
14 May 1987 Adoption of the Report.