article 5 eval

• pro - limited right - can be derrogated from in certain situations
• pro - state has to safeguard against arbitrary detention
• pro - restrictions are listed in detail to avoid any confusion and limit states power
• pro- rules to prevent arbitary use of police power
• pro - case of a and others - identifying the unlafulness surrounding detaining with no charge
• pro - beneficial ecthr precedent - gillian + quinton v uk random stop and search is unlawful - guzzardi v italy deprivation depends on intensity - these responses have developed the law
• con - extended rights of s44 terrorism act - should be stricter
• con - use of kettling is not listed as an exception within the act so shouldn't be used
• con - indeterminate sentences are deemed arbitary
• con - independance of parole baord is questioned as they are appointed by the state
• con - subjectivity around certain terms - promptly
• pro - no article takes priority over others - article 8 and 10
• con - margin of apprectiation - human rights differ by country - different ways to interpret the law - state by state
• con - criminals can stay but immigrants cant - nasri v france
• s +marper v uk - lengthly process to remove dna - even though violation