article 5 eval

• pro - limited right stops state interfering unless limited under subsections, protects public
• con - kettling and indeterminate sentences considered arbitrary
• pro - definition of deprivation protects public, considers cases based on merits
• con - lack of guidance what is and isn't deprivation
• pro - (cheshire west) those lacking mental capacity still owed human rights
• con - (cheshire west) may still be in their best interests to be kept in care
• pro - procedure prescribed by law protects public, deprivation arbitrary if procedures not followed (winterwerp v netherlands)
• pro - pace act protects individual from arbitrary use of power from police
• pro - (mengesha) protects a8 and a5
• pro - law effective on kettling use when breach of peace manages protests
• con - terrorist contradictions in case law and limits (s of s home dept v jj) restrictions and 18 hour curfew a breach (s of s home dept v e) 12 hour curfew no restrictions no breach
• con - promptly needs more clarification for consistency (fox)
• con - what is considered promptly (brogan v uk) (mckay v uk) 6 hour difference
• pro - lawfulness decided speedily by court protects public everyone detained can challenge detention
• con - need clear guidelines for speedily (noorkoiv)