CASE OF AUSTIN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)

Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Erik Møse;Françoise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;Giorgio Malinverni;Ineta Ziemele;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; the second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; the third applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; and the fourth applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , during a demonstration in central GPE , the applicants were contained within a police cordon at ORG ( the junction between FAC and FAC ) .

The first applicant , PERSON , is a member of ORG and had been on many demonstrations , including DATE demonstrations . On DATE she left her DATE daughter at a crèche , planning to collect her at TIME , and travelled from GPE to central GPE with her partner . They attended a protest against globalisation outside ORG before walking with other protesters to ORG , arriving at TIME Around TIME PERSON needed to leave the demonstration to collect her daughter from the crèche . She explained her situation to QUANTITY police officers maintaining the cordon but was told that she could not leave and that it was not known how long it would be before she would be able to leave the area . PERSON therefore arranged for a friend to collect the child from the crèche . She was finally allowed to leave at TIME

DATE and TIME on CARDINAL May CARDINAL , the second applicant attempted to cross ORG to go to a bookshop on LOC . He was told by a police officer that he could not walk down FAC because of the approaching crowd of demonstrators and was advised to take FAC , a parallel road to the north . The applicant followed this advice but between FAC and FAC he was met by a wall of riot police with shields and helmets moving south . The applicant was forced into ORG at TIME He immediately asked to be allowed out of the cordon and was informed that there was an exit for nonprotesters at the FAC side of ORG ; when he went there he was told that there was no exit . The applicant was not able to exit the cordon until TIME

The third applicant had no connection with the demonstration . She worked in the GPE Circus area and was on her lunch break at TIME when she was prevented from returning to her workplace by a line of police officers blocking the road . She turned and tried to pass in another direction but found that that exit was also now blocked by police officers , who began to advance towards her . She was held within the cordon at ORG until TIME She and others repeatedly requested to be allowed to leave the cordoned area but was told by the policemen she approached that they were under orders to allow no one to pass .

The fourth applicant also worked in the GPE Circus area and was also caught up in the cordon while walking through ORG on his lunch break . He was able to leave at TIME

Following the events on DATE , CARDINAL people who had been confined in ORG contacted various firms of solicitors with the intention of commencing proceedings . The various potential applicants , their legal representatives and the representatives of ORG entered into correspondence with a view to progressing the claims in an efficient manner . It was agreed that the first applicant and Mr PERSON , who was a passer - by caught up in the cordon , would act as “ test ” claimants . They commenced proceedings in ORG , claiming damages for false imprisonment and under LAW DATE for breach of the right to liberty guaranteed by LAW . The first applicant also initially advanced a claim for interference with her rights of freedom of expression and assembly contrary to Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention , but she subsequently abandoned these claims . ORG provided undertakings to the legal representatives of the other claimants ( including the second , third and fourth applicants ) that they would not raise any limitation argument if they brought claims in the domestic courts after the test case had been determined .

The hearing in ORG before Tugendhat J lasted DATE , including DATE of oral evidence . He considered live evidence from CARDINAL lay witnesses and CARDINAL experts , statements from a further QUANTITY witnesses , CARDINAL of pages of documentary evidence and video footage from hand - held and security cameras and police helicopters . In his judgment , delivered on DATE ( [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( QB ) ) , Tugendhat J devoted CARDINAL paragraphs to his assessment of the evidence and findings of fact . His factual findings can be summarised as follows .

Tugendhat J found that on DATE and DATE and DATE there had occurred very serious breakdowns in public order in GPE , which the police feared would be repeated in DATE . The theme of all CARDINAL demonstrations was protest against capitalism and globalisation . The organisers of the event on DATE had failed to cooperate with the police and had distributed publicity material similar to that distributed by the organisers of DATE demonstration . During TIME of DATE a crowd of CARDINAL people , wearing masks , caused MONEY worth of damage and injury to members of the public and police officers , CARDINAL of whom required hospital treatment . Demonstrations on these themes had also resulted in serious breakdowns in public order in other countries at about this time , including in GPE on DATE ( ORG meeting ) , in GPE on DATE ( ORG meeting ) , in GPE on DATE ( World Economic Forum LOC summit ) , in GPE on DATE ( another ORG meeting ) , and on DATE in GPE ( a Summit of the LOC meeting ) . The planning for DATE reflected experience at these and earlier demonstrations , particularly in GPE , and recommendations made in the light of them .

For DATE , CARDINAL events had been notified to the police , namely a trade - union DATE and ORG , taking place in different parts of GPE . In addition , intelligence indicated that activists representing a broad coalition of environmentalist , anarchist and left - wing protest groups intended to stage various protests at CARDINAL locations across GPE based on the squares of “ Monopoly ” , a boardgame . The final event was to be a rally at ORG at TIME The organisers of the “ DATE Monopoly ” protest did not make any contact with the police , nor attempt to seek authorisation for the demonstrations , and attempted to maintain secrecy about the locations and nature of the protest . Protesters were directly and indirectly encouraged to wear masks and to engage in looting and violence ( see Tugendhat J ’s judgment , § § CARDINAL ) . The intelligence available to LAW was that there would be “ CARDINAL hard - core demonstrators looking for confrontation , violence and to cause public disorder ” . The Special Branch assessment was that the protest would involve CARDINAL of the most serious threats to public order ever seen in GPE , with a real risk of serious injury and even death , as well as damage to property , if they did not effectively control the crowd . Those at risk included members of the public , police officers and other demonstrators . On DATE the Mayor of GPE wrote an article in the principal GPE evening newspaper , expressing the view that the organisers of the DATE protest deliberately sought to create destruction and urging PERSON to stay away . Similar warnings were reported in a number of other newspapers in DATE and DATE .

The police plan for DATE involved the deployment of CARDINAL officers on foot wearing high - visibility jackets , in addition to mounted police officers . At that time , this was probably the largest number of police officers that had ever been deployed in GPE . The policemen and women responsible for policing on DATE were the most experienced public - order officers in GPE . Since it was foreseen that the final event would be a gathering at ORG at TIME , a speaker system was installed there . The strategic intentions of the police operation were stated as being to provide public reassurance and ensure public safety ; facilitate and police all legitimate protest ; prevent public disorder and protect key buildings such as FAC and ORG ; prevent crime and take all reasonable steps to apprehend offenders if crime was committed ; and generally minimise disruption . However , the police had little idea of what to expect or how they would react to it if and when it happened .

During TIME there were a number of fairly small demonstrations across GPE . At TIME demonstrators started gathering outside the offices of ORG in the LOC area . They walked towards ORG then up FAC to ORG . By TIME it was estimated that there were over CARDINAL people in LOC and that more were steadily joining them . A number of people moving up FAC were wearing face masks . The police intelligence had indicated that the gathering at ORG was to take place at TIME and the size of the crowd there at this time took them by surprise , with insufficient officers in the area to prevent more people entering it .

At TIME the police decided to put up a cordon to contain the crowd . The decision was based on the available intelligence , which had estimated that CARDINAL individuals intent on violence would take part in DATE protest and on what had occurred at previous similar demonstrations , rather than on the behaviour of the crowd up until that point . The decision was made in conscious exercise of common - law powers to prevent a breach of the peace . Once the decision to put in a cordon was made , it took TIME to put in a loose cordon and , as more police officers arrived , CARDINAL TIME to put in a full cordon . There was sufficient space within the cordon for people to walk around and there was no crushing . Nonetheless , as the afternoon progressed , conditions became uncomfortable . The weather was cold and wet . No food or water was provided and there was no access to toilet facilities or shelter .

No announcement was made to the crowd when the cordon was first put in place because of police concern that it would not be strong enough to resist a concerted effort by the crowd to break through . The first announcement through the public - address system was made at TIME , informing the crowd that they were being contained to prevent a breach of the peace . It was accepted by the Police Commander in evidence before the domestic courts that the announcement to the crowd could have been made earlier , perhaps at CARDINAL or TIME

At TIME , TIME after the full cordon was put in place , ORG commanding the operation planned to commence a controlled release from within the cordon up FAC north . However , release had to be delayed when members of the crowd both within and outside the cordon started to throw missiles and use violence against the police and when there was an attempt by the crowd to break through the cordon into FAC . At TIME a dispersal north was again planned but suspended because of violence by protesters on both sides of the cordon . At around this time more people started moving towards ORG to take part in the event which had been planned to take place there at TIME By TIME the police situation report was that officers were sandwiched between crowds , with pushing and shoving and bottles being thrown . At TIME there was a crowd of CARDINAL people outside the cordon following a samba band , which made dispersal into LOC difficult . The situation was reviewed at TIME but collective release was ruled out because of the risk of violence and disorder . At TIME there was serious disorder in LOC caused by a core of CARDINAL masked protesters which attracted a crowd of CARDINAL . At TIME the crowd within the cordon was calm but the police were not willing to risk collective release because of the presence of other large , disorderly crowds nearby .

At TIME the decision was taken to disperse the crowd within the cordon . However , the crowd became violent again and at TIME the decision to release was reversed . At TIME release was commenced , with small groups and individuals being escorted away from the containment . However , at TIME the release was put on hold because of the difficulty in policing the crowds outside the cordon , some of whom were throwing large bits of masonry and burning missiles at the police , and because demonstrators released from the cordon were remaining in the vicinity . At TIME the collective dispersal was resumed , with additional police resources to escort those released from the cordon . However , the dispersal was soon halted again because it became apparent that those being released from ORG were joining another large crowd , which had previously been violent , to the north in FAC . By TIME FAC was clear and the collective release of the ORG crowd recommenced , in groups of CARDINAL . By TIME the dispersal was almost complete . CARDINAL people were arrested as a result of the disorder in ORG and the surrounding area . It was part of the collective - release policy to search some or all of those released , take a record of their names and addresses and photograph them .

The police estimated that there were a maximum of CARDINAL people within the cordon at the peak time and CARDINAL in the crowd outside it . Analysis of the documentary and video evidence admitted at trial indicated that , over the course of the afternoon , CARDINAL people were released individually . It was accepted that this figure was unlikely to be accurate , but Tugendhat J found that the number of individual releases was likely to be “ CARDINAL ” . Of these , most were from the north and south sides of ORG , with very few people being released to the east and west . Most of the recorded releases were before TIME ; CARDINAL were TIME ; CARDINAL TIME ; CARDINAL between TIME and TIME ; and CARDINAL individual releases after TIME It was difficult for police officers to identify members of the crowd for individual release on the basis that they posed no threat of violence . Some of those released were identified in police records as being bystanders caught up in the demonstration . Others were described as being in physical distress , pregnant women , elderly people or children .

The judge concluded that , in the light of the violence which had occurred at previous demonstrations , the intelligence available to the police , the lack of cooperation from the organisers and the conduct of certain sections of the crowd , the police had reasonable grounds to believe that there was a real risk of damage to property , serious physical injury and even death . The main risks were from crushing and trampling , but there were also risks from missile throwing . Given the situation at ORG , if they were to prevent violence and injury , the police had no alternative at TIME but to impose an absolute cordon and this was , therefore , a proportionate response by the police to the presence of the crowd . The principal purpose of the containment was to ensure the safety of persons ( including those within the cordon ) , the preservation of property in LOC and the protection of other rights of third parties . The police also intended to segregate some members of the crowd from others , if appropriate by asking them questions or by searching them .

From TIME , no one in the crowd was free to leave without permission . The measure was a close confinement , with minimal liberty in LOC , and its effects were severe , increasingly so as time went by . However , it was never expected that the containment would last so long and the possibility of safely releasing the crowd was kept under review at all times .

It was not practicable for the police to release the crowd collectively earlier than they did . There were periods when the dispersal route was blocked by other crowds attempting to get into ORG . It would not have been reasonable or safe to allow these crowds to join each other without controlling their movement . In addition , there were long periods during which the police did not have the resources to provide for safe dispersal , and it was not suggested that the Commissioner of ORG could or should have made available more police officers than he had on the streets DATE . CARDINAL reason the resources were inadequate was that a substantial proportion of the crowd was not cooperating with the police on the cordons around them . The judge estimated that PERCENT were actively hostile at any given time , pushing and throwing missiles , and otherwise showing a lack of cooperation . Those not pushing or throwing missiles were not disassociating themselves from the smaller minority who were . As a result the cordon had to be manned by enough officers to resist a concerted push by these people to break out . A cooperative crowd could have been contained by fewer officers , leaving others available to control the dispersal . The other reason why there were insufficient resources was that other crowds outside the containment were refusing to accept control by or directions from the police . The police were doing the best that they could in the most difficult circumstances . The resources they needed to control the dispersal of the crowd in ORG were necessarily and properly deployed elsewhere . That did not mean that the police had to allow the crowd in ORG to disperse without control . According to the judge , that would have been an abnegation of their duty to prevent a breach of the peace , and of their duty of care and the positive obligation incumbent upon them to protect the members of the crowd and third parties , including police officers , from the risk of serious injury , as well as to protect third parties from risk of damage to property .

In the circumstances that existed in ORG , and in particular the difficulty for the police to distinguish between peaceful and violent or potentially violent individuals within the cordon , the judge was unable to find any individual release policy , other than that applied , which would have been workable . Once the cordon was in place , any measure of controlled release was bound to have taken a considerable time before all of the crowd was released . It was impossible to say how long it would have taken if there had been no searches or evidence gathering , but it would have been more than a matter of TIME . If a release was to be combined with searches and evidence gathering , it was bound to take as long as this one took from the time it restarted at TIME , that is TIME at least .

As regards the false - imprisonment claim , Tugendhat J held that the defence of necessity was available and that the police action was necessary .

In connection with LAW , the judge found that containment within the cordon amounted to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of LAW . Although he found that there was never an intention on the part of the police to bring everyone contained at ORG before a judge , the purpose was to contain the crowd so that the police could arrest and bring before a judge all those they reasonably considered had committed offences and those whose arrest was necessary to prevent them committing offences , and that this was sufficient for the requirements of LAW ( c ) .

In addition , Tugendhat J found that , on the unusual facts of the case , there had been no interference with the rights of freedom of speech and assembly . None of the witnesses was able to explain what the purpose of the procession to ORG was or what it was proposed should have happened either there , or anywhere else , if the police cordon had not been imposed . He found that the literature distributed in advance by the organisers was intended to encourage at least a substantial minority of those present to engage in some form of disorderly and criminal activity , probably including public - order offences such as affray , criminal damage and theft . If there had been no cordon , it would in practice have been impossible in this environment of disorder for anyone intending to carry out lawful acts of protest to do so . Moreover , there was no evidence that anyone at ORG intended to exercise any rights of speech that they did not in fact exercise . Tugendhat J therefore concluded that the case was about public order and the right to liberty , and not about freedom of speech or freedom of assembly , and he dismissed all the plaintiffs’ claims .

Tugendhat J granted PERSON and Mr PERSON leave to appeal against his findings as regards the claims for false imprisonment and under LAW . In a judgment delivered on DATE ( [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) , ORG dismissed the appeal .

In connection with the claim of false imprisonment , ORG held that , in order to prevent a breach of the peace threatened by others , the police could lawfully take action which interfered with or curtailed the lawful exercise of the rights of innocent third parties , but only where all other possible steps had been taken to avoid a breach of the peace and to protect the rights of third parties , and where the action taken was reasonably necessary and proportionate . Applying this test , in the circumstances of the demonstration at ORG , PERSON containment was lawful because it was necessary to prevent an imminent breach of the peace by others .

In connection with the claim under LAW concluded that the detention did not amount to a deprivation of liberty . Sir PERSON , giving the judgment of the court , held as follows .

“ CARDINAL . ... [ T]he first question is whether the appellants were deprived of their liberty from the outset . In our opinion they plainly were not . The position at that time was not markedly different in terms of detention from a number of different types of confinement or detention to which the judge referred which would not be regarded as a deprivation of liberty within LAW . A good example is perhaps a football crowd . It is commonplace for such a crowd to be contained for what may turn out to be quite long periods , partly for the protection of individuals in the crowd and partly ( in some cases ) to avoid crowd violence , perhaps as between groups of opposing supporters ... Other examples would be ... for example where motorists are unable to leave a motorway , perhaps for TIME , because of police action following an accident . In such cases it may be necessary for police to confine individuals in particular areas for what may be much longer than originally intended .

In our opinion this was plainly such a case . On the judge ’s findings of fact , the police had no alternative but to impose the cordon which they did . They anticipated orderly release over TIME in order to avoid violence . The judge identified their various purposes , which included safety and the prevention of crime by individuals in the crowd many of whom could not be identified . In these circumstances the original imposition of the cordon could not , in our judgment , properly be regarded as the kind of arbitrary detention which the GPE authorities would describe as deprivation of liberty within the meaning of LAW . For these reasons we hold that the judge erred in principle in concluding that the appellants were unlawfully detained as from TIME

On that basis , it is for us to consider afresh the remaining question , namely whether they were unlawfully detained thereafter . In our judgment the answer to that question is ‘ No’ . So for example , ... on a number of occasions during TIME the police gave the order to commence controlled release , only to find that they could not safely carry it through ... On CARDINAL occasions the decision to commence controlled dispersal north had to be reviewed or suspended because of the conduct of protesters either inside or outside the contained area , with the result that the final release phase did not begin until TIME ... During the whole period there was very considerable violence , although not it must be stressed by the appellants ... As the judge concluded ... this was not simply a static crowd of protesters in LOC surrounded by police and held in place for TIME . It was a dynamic , chaotic , and confusing situation in which there were also a large number of other protesters in the immediate vicinity outside the cordon who were threatening serious disorder and posing a threat to the officers both on the cordon and within it .

In these circumstances it could not sensibly be held that there came a time in which what was originally something less than a deprivation of liberty subsequently became a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of LAW . We therefore hold , contrary to the conclusion of the judge , that , if all the relevant circumstances are taken into account , there was not here the kind of arbitrary deprivation of liberty contemplated by the LAW . ”

PERSON , like Mr PERSON , was granted leave to appeal by ORG in connection with the issues under LAW . The case was heard on DATE and DATE , and on CARDINAL DATE a unanimous judgment was delivered , dismissing the appeal on the ground that LAW did not apply since the applicant had not been deprived of her liberty ( [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ) .

Lord Hope of PERSON , with whom all the other Law Lords agreed , explained his approach to the interpretation of “ deprivation of liberty ” as follows .

“ CARDINAL . The application of LAW to measures of crowd control is an issue which does not appear so far to have been brought to the attention of the court in GPE . So there is no direct guidance as to whether LAW is engaged where the police impose restrictions on movement for the sole purpose of protecting people from injury or avoiding serious damage to property . The need for measures of crowd control to be adopted in the public interest is not new , however . It is frequently necessary , for example , for such measures to be imposed at football matches to ensure that rival fans do not confront each other in situations that may lead to violence . Restrictions on movement may also be imposed by the police on motorists in the interests of road safety after an accident on a motorway , or to prevent local residents from coming too close to a fire or a terrorist incident . It is not without interest that it has not so far been suggested that restrictions of that kind will breach LAW so long as they are proportionate and not arbitrary .

The restrictions that were imposed by the police cordon in this case may be thought , as compared with the examples that I have just mentioned , to have been greater in degree and intensity . But Lord PERSON for the respondent submitted that one could not sensibly ignore the purpose of the restriction or the circumstances . Detention in the paradigm sense was not in the minds of anyone . There would have been no question of there being a deprivation of liberty if the cordon had remained in place for TIME . The fact that it remained in place for much longer ought to make no difference , as the fact that it was not possible to release everyone from the cordon earlier was due to circumstances that were beyond the control of the police . This was a case , he said , where the answer to the question whether what was done was within the scope of LAW was to be determined by striking a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society . It was , of course , necessary to give full effect to the fact that LAW was a fundamental right whose importance was paramount . But the fact that infringement was not open to justification except in the cases listed in sub - paragraphs ( a ) to ( f ) pointed to the need for care to be taken to identify the limits of its application .

PERSON for the appellant , on the other hand , said that the purpose for which the measure was employed was irrelevant . The fact that it was a necessary response and was proportionate was a pre - condition for establishing the measure ’s legality for the purpose of sub - paragraphs ( a ) to ( f ) of LAW . But it went no further than that . There was no balance to be struck when consideration was being given to the initial question whether LAW applied to the measures adopted by the police . Questions of purpose and balance only arose when consideration was being given to the cases listed in sub - paragraphs ( a ) to ( f ) .

Is purpose relevant ?

The decision whether there was deprivation of liberty is , of course , highly sensitive to the facts of each case . Little value can be derived therefore from decisions on the application of LAW that depend entirely on their own facts . But they are of value where they can be said to illustrate issues of principle . In the present context some assistance is to be derived from the cases as to the extent to which regard can be had to the aim or purpose of the measure in question when consideration is being given as to whether it is within the ambit of LAW at all .

If purpose is relevant , it must be to enable a balance to be struck between what the restriction seeks to achieve and the interests of the individual . The proposition that there is a balance to be struck at the initial stage when the scope of the LAW is being considered was not mentioned in PERSON v The GPE ( No CARDINAL ) ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL or ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL . Nor can it be said to be based on anything that is to be found in the wording of the Article . But I think that there are sufficient indications elsewhere in the court ’s case - law that the question of balance is inherent in the concepts that are enshrined in the ORG and that they have a part to play when consideration is being given to the scope of the first rank of fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual . ”

Lord Hope then reviewed a number of judgments and decisions of ORG , including X. v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Commission decision of DATE , ORG and Reports ( DATE , p. CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Commission decision of DATE , PERSON , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ; PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ; PERSON GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ; O’Halloran and PERSON the GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . ORG , ORG CARDINALIII ; and N. v. the GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE . He concluded :

“ CARDINAL . I would hold therefore that there is room , even in the case of fundamental rights as to whose application no restriction or limitation is permitted by the Convention , for a pragmatic approach to be taken which takes full account of all the circumstances . No reference is made in DATE to the interests of public safety or the protection of public order as one of the cases in which a person may be deprived of his liberty . This is in sharp contrast to LAW , which expressly qualifies the right to freedom of expression in these respects . But the importance that must be attached in the context of LAW to measures taken in the interests of public safety is indicated by LAW , as the lives of persons affected by mob violence may be at risk if measures of crowd control can not be adopted by the police . This is a situation where a search for a fair balance is necessary if these competing fundamental rights are to be reconciled with each other . The ambit that is given to LAW as to measures of crowd control must , of course , take account of the rights of the individual as well as the interests of the community . So any steps that are taken must be resorted to in good faith and must be proportionate to the situation which has made the measures necessary . This is essential to preserve the fundamental principle that anything that is done which affects a person ’s right to liberty must not be arbitrary . If these requirements are met however it will be proper to conclude that measures of crowd control that are undertaken in the interests of the community will not infringe the LAW individual members of the crowd whose freedom of movement is restricted by them . ”

Lord PERSON of GPE agreed that there had been no deprivation of liberty , and observed as follows .

“ CARDINAL . The police are under a duty to keep the peace when a riot is threatened , and to take reasonable steps to prevent serious public disorder , especially if it involves violence to individuals and property . Any sensible person living in a modern democracy would reasonably expect to be confined , or at least accept that it was proper that she could be confined , within a limited space by the police , in some circumstances . Thus , if a deranged or drunk person was on the loose with a gun in a building , the police would be entitled , indeed expected , to ensure that , possibly for TIME , members of the public were confined to where they were , even if it was in a pretty small room with a number of other people . Equally , where there are groups of supporters of opposing teams at a football match , the police routinely , and obviously properly , ensure that , in order to avoid violence and mayhem , the CARDINAL groups are kept apart ; this often involves confining CARDINAL or both of the groups within a relatively small space for a not insignificant period . Or if there is an accident on a motorway , it is common , and again proper , for the police to require drivers and passengers to remain in their stationary motor vehicles , often for TIME or two . In all such cases , the police would be confining individuals for their own protection and to prevent violence to people or property .

So , too , as I see it , where there is a demonstration , particularly one attended by a justified expectation of substantial disorder and violence , the police must be expected , indeed sometimes required , to take steps to ensure that such disorder and violence do not occur , or , at least , are confined to a minimum . Such steps must often involve restraining the movement of the demonstrators , and sometimes of those members of the public unintentionally caught up in the demonstration . In some instances , that must involve people being confined to a relatively small space for some time .

NORP In such cases , it seems to me unrealistic to contend that Article CARDINAL can come into play at all , provided , and it is a very important proviso , that the actions of the police are proportionate and reasonable , and any confinement is restricted to a reasonable minimum , as to discomfort and as to time , as is necessary for the relevant purpose , namely the prevention of serious public disorder and violence .

It was suggested on behalf of the appellant that , at any rate in some of the examples I have given , consent to being confined could be imputed to the people concerned . I am not sure that that is a satisfactory analysis , not least because , unless the consent is to be treated as being involuntary or irrebuttably deemed to be given , it would not deal with the case of a person who informed the police that he objected to being confined . However , if imputed consent is an appropriate basis for justifying confinement for LAW , then it seems to me that the confinement in the present case could be justified on the basis that anyone on the streets , particularly on a demonstration with a well - known risk of serious violence , must be taken to be consenting to the possibility of being confined by the police , if it is a reasonable and proportionate way of preventing serious public disorder and violence .

So , in agreement with ORG , I would hold that , in the light of the findings of the Judge , as summarised in para [ CARDINAL ] above , the actions of the police in the present case did not give rise to any infringement of the appellant ’s LAW . The feature of the present case which gives particular cause for concern is the length of the period of confinement , TIME . However , having reached the conclusion that reasonable and proportionate constraint , which is requisite to prevent serious public disorder and violence , does not infringe LAW , it seems to me hard to contend that the mere fact that the period of constraint was unusually long can , of itself , convert a situation which would otherwise not be within the ambit of LAW into one which is . I think that some support for that view can be found in cases where it has been held that detention in prison is not taken out of LAW because it was only for a short time – see e.g. PERSON v GPE ( Application No CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) DATE .

As already indicated , it appears to me that the intention of the police is relevant , particularly in a non - paradigm case , such as this , and where the intention is manifest from the external circumstances . If it transpired , for instance , that the police had maintained the cordon , beyond the time necessary for crowd control , in order to punish , or ‘ to teach a lesson’ to , the demonstrators within the cordon , then it seems to me that very different considerations would arise . In such circumstances , I would have thought that there would have been a powerful argument for saying that the maintenance of the cordon did amount to a detention within the meaning of LAW . However , as is apparent from the clear and careful findings made by the Judge , which have quite rightly not been challenged on appeal , there could be no question of such a contention being raised in the present case .

Furthermore , it is worth bearing in mind that , at least as I see it , if the restraint in the present case did amount to detention within DATE , it would not be possible for the police to justify the detention under the exceptions in paras ( b ) or ( c ) , not least because of the reasoning of ORG in GPE ( No CARDINAL ) ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL . I consider that the fact that the restraint in the present case could not be justified under any of the exceptions in paras ( a ) to ( f ) supports the contention that the constraint did not amount to detention within DATE at all . It would appear to me to be very odd if it was not open to the police to act as they did in the instant circumstances , without infringing the LAW those who were constrained . ”

Lord PERSON agreed with Lord Hope , and Lord ORG agreed with ORG and PERSON , emphasising that “ the purpose of the confinement or restriction and the intentions of the persons responsible for imposing it rank very highly in the circumstances to be taken into account in reaching the decision ” whether there has been a deprivation of liberty .

Lord ORG agreed with Lord Hope , but added as a “ footnote ” :

“ CARDINAL . In paras ORG of his opinion PERSON poses the question ‘ Is purpose relevant?’ His conclusion is a very guarded one , that is ( para DATE ) that there is room , even in the case of fundamental rights , for a pragmatic approach which takes full account of all the circumstances . I respectfully agree that it is right to be cautious on this point . ORG has frequently made clear that all the surrounding circumstances may be relevant in determining whether there is a deprivation of liberty : see for instance ORG v GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL , para CARDINAL :

It is noteworthy that the listed factors , wide as they are , do not include purpose .

The purpose of confinement which may arguably amount to deprivation of liberty is in general relevant , not to whether the threshold is crossed , but to whether that confinement can be justified under LAW ( a ) to ( f ) : see for instance ( in relation to LAW ) PERSON v GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL ; GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL ; Wall v GPE , ( DATE ) admissibility decision ORG ; ORG v GPE ( above ) ; ORG v GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL ; PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL ; and ORG v GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL . If confinement amounting to deprivation of liberty and personal security is established , good intentions can not make up for any deficiencies in justification of the confinement under CARDINAL of the exceptions listed in LAW ( a ) to ( f ) , which are to be strictly construed .

Many of these LAW ( e ) cases also raise issues as to express or implied consent ( to admission to a psychiatric ward or old people ’s home ) . Some of the earlier cases seem questionable DATE insofar as they relied on ‘ parental rights’ ( especially PERSON , which was a CARDINAL decision that the admission to a psychiatric ward of a DATE boy was not a deprivation of liberty , because of his mother ’s ‘ parental rights’ ) . ORG has , I think , sent out a clear message indicating a different approach to the personal autonomy of young people ( although the unfortunate claimant in that case was DATE at the time of her compulsory medication in a locked ward in the clinic at GPE , for which she was made an exceptionally large award for non - pecuniary loss ) .

I also feel some unease about the decision in GPE ( DATE ) admissibility decision CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; police stations can be intimidating places for anyone , particularly children , and it seems rather disingenuous to reason that

‘ in the present case the police action was not aimed at depriving the children of their liberty but simply to obtain information from them about how they obtained possession of the objects found on them and about thefts which had occurred in the school previously’ .

Having said all that , however , I conclude that it is essential , in the present case , to pose the simple question : what were the police doing at ORG on DATE ? What were they about ? The answer is , as Lord Hope has explained in his full summary of the judge ’s unchallenged findings , that they were engaged in an unusually difficult exercise in crowd control , in order to avoid personal injuries and damage to property . The senior officers conducting the operations were determined to avoid a fatality such as occurred in FAC on DATE . The aim of the police was to disperse the crowd , and the fact that the achievement of that aim took much longer than they expected was due to circumstances beyond their control . ”