Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
30.08.1990
Facts
The applicants, Mr. Fox, Mrs. Campbell and Mr. Hartley, were arrested by the police on the suspicion of being terrorists. A simple reference to a section of law was made without giving more specific information to the arrestees. However, few hours later they were interrogated and reference to specific offences were made. No charges were brought against them. They were interrogated and the first two applicants were released approximately after 44 hours in detention and the third applicant after 30 hours in detention.
Complaint
Applicants argued that they were not informed promptly about their charges, according to Article 5(2) of the Convention. They also argued that they had not been arrested and detained on ‘reasonable suspicion’ of having committed an offence. Therefore, their arrest and detention were not justified under Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Court's ruling
The Court stated that having a ‘reasonable suspicion’ presupposes the existence of facts or information, which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. What may be regarded as ‘reasonable’ depends upon all the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the fact that Mr. Fox and Mrs. Campbell both have previous convictions for acts of terrorism and that all the applicants, during their detention, were questioned about specific terrorist acts are insufficient to support the conclusion that there was a ‘reasonable suspicion’. The Court accordingly found that there was a breach of Article 5(1).
The Court stated that a person arrested must be told in simple, non-technical language that he can understand the essential legal and factual grounds for his or her arrest. Such information is essential for being able to apply to a court to challenge the lawfulness of arrest. Although this information must be given promptly, not every detail can be given at the moment of arrest. The promptness must be evaluated in each case based on the specific circumstances.
In case of the applicants, they were informed, by mere reference to a section of law, that they were arrested on the suspicion of terrorism, which is not in itself sufficient. However, a few hours later, when interrogated, reference to specific acts were made, which was considered sufficiently prompt and specific. Thus, the Court found no breach of Article 5(2).