R (Hicks and Others) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Mance,Lord Reed,Lord Carnwath,Lord Toulson,Lord Dyson |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKSC 9 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 15 February 2017 |
[2017] UKSC 9
SUPREME COURT
Before Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson and Lord Dyson
Where persons were detained to prevent an imminent breach of the peace, but released after a short period of time before it was practical to bring them before the magistrates' court, their right to liberty under article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been violated provided that the lawfulness of the detention could subsequently be challenged and decided by a court. The Supreme Court so held in dismissing an appeal by Brian Hicks, Deborah Scordo-Mackie, JMC (anonymised by order of the court) and Callum Hurley against the order of the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Leveson and Lord Justice Aikens)WLR([2014] 1 WLR 2152) upholding the order of the Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Oppenshaw)([2012] ACD 102) dismissing their article 5 challenges to their arrests on April 29, 2011.
The Divisional Court had also ruled that their arrests and detention had been lawful under domestic law, which decision had not been the subject of appeal.
By article 5.1 of the Convention no one was to be deprived of his or her liberty save, inter alia, in the following cases: "(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person ... to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence ..." Ms Phillippa Kaufmann, QC and Ms Ruth Brander for the appellants; Mr Sam Grodzinski, QC and Mr Mark Summers, QC for the commissioner; Mr Ben Jaffey for the home secretary, intervening.
Lord Toulson, with whom the other members of the court agreed, said that the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on April 29, 2011, attracted vast public interest nationally and internationally. Managing the crowds presented the Metropolitan Police with a big challenge. The police were aware that members of the royal family, foreign royalty and other heads of state would be moving around London and that thousands of citizens were expected to converge on central London to take part in the day's celebrations.
One month earlier, a day of action organised by the TUC had been marred by the actions of outsiders who had used the occasion to commit various offences of violence. There had been similar violent disruption of student protests in late 2010. In the build up to the royal wedding, the police had intelligence that activities aimed at disrupting the celebrations were being planned through social websites.
The four appellants were arrested in separate incidents at various places in central London on the grounds that their arrest was reasonably believed by the arresting officers to be necessary to prevent an imminent breach of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45
...v. Godoy, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; Cloutier v. Langlois, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; R. (on the application of Hicks) v. Metropolitan Police Comr, [2017] UKSC 9, [2018] 1 All E.R. 374; R. (on the application of Laporte) v. Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary, [2006] UKHL 55, [2007] 2 All E......
-
Rochaun Archer v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...the purpose of examining the legality of preventive detention: see at [82]–[85]. In R (Hicks) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 9, [2017] AC 256, however, the UK Supreme Court declined to follow that line of case law and instead adopted the reasoning of the minority ......
-
Rochaun Archer v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...564 (“ Austin 1”) at [34]; Austin v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 14 (“ Austin 2”) at [56]; R (Hicks) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 9; [2017] AC 256 (“ Hicks”) at [29] and [38]; S v Denmark at [116] and 34 He therefore concluded that “the continued detention of a person h......
-
The Queen (on the application of Kathleen Elizabeth Simonis) v Arts Council England
...requirements of the free movement of goods and so falls to be disapplied: see R (Miller and another) v Secretary of State (SC (E & N)) [2017] UKSC 9 [2018] 1 WLR 1035 (at [67]); Spa Granital v Amministrazione Dell finanze Dello Stato Case No 170/84; Lennox (trading as R Lennox & Son) v In......
-
Court in the Act: Procedural Progression in the Law of Arrest, Detention and Failure to Answer to Bail
...(OUP, Oxford 2018) 1323, at [D1.174]; PACE 1984, s. 17(5).52. R. (on the application of Hicks) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 9; [2017] AC 256.53. R Glover, ‘Keeping the peace and preventive justice—a new test for breach of the peace?’ [2018] Public Law 444 (Themeani......