Civil liberty under threat?

[hb904460]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47737635

interesting ruling by the ECHR,
"which concluded that police could detain people - and therefore interfere with their right to liberty - if they believed it would prevent someone getting involved in later disorder."

I haven't read the whole judgement but the word "later" definitely needs some defining.
Thoughts?

[wazzickle]

What's the problem exactly? You don't want people being prevented from causing problems later? If someone goes into the police station and says 'I haven't killed yet but I'm definitely going to if you let me out of here' you think it's reasonable to let them go? The line is important, of course, which is what we have courts and rulings for. I personally have no problem with the principle of detaining someone if there's good enough reason to believe they mean and have the capability of doing someone else harm. Their rights might be infringed by doing so but the judgement call is that someone elses' rights would be more greatly infringed not to take action.

[hb904460]

The problem is time frame and who makes the call whether someone is going to commit disorder. Its not as if someone is tooled up with plans to rob a bank. A small group of people, 2 miles away from a major event is hardly commiting disorder. A peaceful protest yes, major crime to be detained, no.
Is it the thin end of the wedge? When do the authorities decide that someone is going to commit a crime and how long can they detain them for? If a child experiences the Macdonald Triad should they be locked away indefinitely? Its extremely open to abuse and a little "minority report".

[Corky34]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47737635

interesting ruling by the ECHR,
"which concluded that police could detain people - and therefore interfere with their right to liberty - if they believed it would prevent someone getting involved in later disorder."

I haven't read the whole judgement but the word "later" definitely needs some defining.
Thoughts?

To be fair they didn't rule that arresting them did not interfere with their right to liberty, the UK courts ruled that it didn't, the ECHR simply agreed with all the previous rulings.

That's how legal appeals work, the higher courts simply judges if the lower court interpreted the law correctly and/or followed procedures correctly.

[Galant]

This was out of line imo. Based on the information available in that story. It's hard to see how there was any credible threat there and as such I don't think the police should just be able to arrest someone. The lines are too blurred, when is it too far, too much?

Human beings and human society have a tendency to oppress/enforce where permitted. It's simply easier to operate in a heavy handed fashion. Human liberties aren't a matter of whether someone feels like it, and that's what this risks becoming - someone in authority feels like you're a risk and so you're removed. I don't care how well authorities are trained, there still need to be black and white rules about what is and isn't permitted.

If the authorities wanted to prevent protests around the wedding then they should have announced that before hand (maybe they did?) and specified what area might be a 'protest free' zone - assuming that sort of thing is even legal. Then people know where they stand. Picking people up just in case? No thanks.

I have freedom to move around as I please (obviously not including trespassing etc) and get on with my life. It should not be the case that the authorities can interfere with that without very good (and specific) reason for doing so. I don't see that here - based on what I've read.

As for the legality/ruling - what's legal and what's right don't always coincide.

[Saracen999]

To be fair they didn't rule that arresting them did not interfere with their right to liberty, the UK courts ruled that it didn't, the ECHR simply agreed with all the previous rulings.

That's how legal appeals work, the higher courts simply judges if the lower court interpreted the law correctly and/or followed procedures correctly.

As I read it, the UK courts didn't quite say that, either. It was more nuanced than that.

What (as I read it) the UK courts (up to Supreme Court) ruled was that the balance between civil liberty and security was in the circumstances not illegal.

But the point was stressed about circumstances - a major international event, a heightened threat level, some of the literature apparently threatening direct action (the maggot confetti thing), and so on.

I don't think this ruling is much of a threat to civil liberty because it specifically referenced the UK courts having ruled the way they had in those circumstances.

The thing is, police always have a delicate balance to strike, and this ranges from handling a drunk outside a nightclub, and event happening hundreds or thousands of times a week, right across the country, up to dealing wuth highly unusual security situations (like this) or terrorist incidents real or suspected.

And it's a judgement call as to when to interfere with an individual's liberty, and when not to.

For instance, we're out walking across a bridge in London or wherever, and an incident has occurred the nature of which is unclear, but might be terror-related. Police will close access, and quite right too, and prevent bith you and me going where we want to. We might be at risk if we proceed, we might not, but they will almost certainly limit our freedom to carry on, if a risk assessment says it's too dangerous.

The same logic applies to all thise drunks, often depending on their actions and demeanour. You might get an area exclusion 'til tomorrow, you might get pointed in the direction of home and nudged on your way or, if the risk of violence to others is perceived, you might find yourself in the back of a van, heading to a cell for the night. All, to one extent or another, limit our civil liberties.

Imagine the furore if a protester had been allowed to get close and then thrown not confetti or maggots but paint, or acid, and the police hadn't stopped it.

Any general power of arrest just because some cop thinks someone might be going to do something clearly is a threat to liberty, but this ruling is about minimal action, not done arbitrarily, and in a highly unusal security situation.

In other words, be careful of media sensationalisation.