ECHR - Boyle v UK [2008] - Held: violation of Article 5.3

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by thingy, Jan 15, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Boyle v United Kingdom (Application no: 55434/00)

    The Times has just reported the outcome of Boyle which has ruled in his favour. The ruling gives effect to article 5.3: Everyone arrested or detained ... shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial... in the armed forces.

    Times Law Report, published 15 Jan 08, p51.

    ECHR - FULL TEXT

    The case revolved around a complaint by Boyle that he had been held illegally in custody at the behest of his Commanding Officer, who as part of the prosecution, was not an objective adjudicator; nor was he qualified to act in a [quasi] judicial capacity. The ECHR held that he lacked impartiality and independence, and therefore Boyle's human rights had been violated. Their ruling confirms Hood v United Kingdom (Application no: 27267/95) 29 ECHR 365 [1999]
     
  2. Re: ECHR - Boyle v UK [2008] - Held: violation of Article 5.

    Thingy

    Why Oh Why do the Military and their various forms of Police still think they can play fast and loose with the British legal system and in particular, PACE Act. and detention in custody.

    They have had since before 1985 to get it right see entry lifted from the official RAF Police site below.

    Quoute:

    Oct 1985 - The Cyprus spy trial at the Old Bailey collapses and all the
    defendants are acquitted. Allegations of ill-treatment in RAF POLICE
    custody were made by defendants which results in the Government
    ordering a formal inquiry into the matter. Mr George Carman QC is
    appointed to head the inquiry team. The new Service Police Codes of
    Practice as part of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are
    introduced into service replacing the Judges Rules."

    Snowdrops

    Unquote:

    Little different to when I joined William Hill Organisation in the early 90's and was told PACE does not apply to us Fraud Investigators only Police officer. WRONG. Will they and their advisors ever learn. If you are going to do it do it right. Lesson one as an investigator, never try to prove a person committed an offence, first try and prove he did not because if you can, so can anyone else. If you cannot then start trying to prove they did commit the alledged offence.

    Nutty
     
  3. Nutty

    I think that even today the police despite PACE from time to time though perhaps not as often as before first select their suspect then set about finding the evidence rather than finding the evidence first and letting that lead them to the suspect.
     
  4. Then they are poor investigators, no problem with selecting your suspects or gathering the evidence correctly but first ensure you cannot prove they did not commit the offence, 1st Lesson at Detective Training School Hendon circa 1976, its not a new science. Often you have to select (Arrest) your suspect or lose them, but to arrest as a Constable, you only need reasonable suspicion that they committed the alledged offence not evidence. In fact you only need reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence has been commited, not evidence, to also exercise your power of arrest.

    Nutty
     
  5. I am not suggesting anything but that but they are human and thus fallable, like us all. It is I suspect one of the main reasons for many of the 'miscarriages of justice' that we have from time to time. Whilst there is pehaps not quite the same pressure for results as one may find elsewhere it still exists in the UK, and does still happen. Sure PACE and the setting up the DPS have helped but whilst they are run by humans there will always be the risk.
     
  6. so if someone is placed in cells onboard, is this a breach of human rights?
    by a reggy who said i was drunk.
    Maybe i could sue!! I was placed in cells & told I was being charged with drunk on board but I had the case admonished due to being given a spiked drink (had witnesses)

    btw I'm Joking about sueing.
     
  7. There are no cells onboard; I wouldn't arrest a man solely for being drunk. I might, however, place a close watch on the man if I was concerned with his physical and/or mental state....
     
  8. I wonder if PACE applies to the House of Commons Serjeant-at-Arms and the Lords Black Rod?
     
  9. Clearly, European ideas of fairness are far more important than military discipline. I may see some relevance of the offence being additional to military when I've stopped being p**sed off.
     
  10. The reggie was correct "You were drunk on board" spiked drink or not. Are reggies expert witnesses when it comes to drunks like PC's? So when they say a man is drunk he is, a bit like a a Doctor saying a person is dead.

    Sue everybody in sight its a the British way, Now.

    Nutty
     
  11. Yes if what they are investigating is a suspected criminal offence unless the Royal Palace is exempt from the requirements of PACE. Then of coures it would not apply to any members, staff or visitors.

    Task: look up to see if any place in England and Wales or Person's are exempt the provisions of PACE Act.

    Nutty
     
  12. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    This is weird. I know I'm a billion years out of date but there used to be a range of offences for which the OOD was REQUIRED to place a man under close arrest to prevent him further incriminating himself e.g striking where he might decide to strike someone else as well. [Response on one occasion: 'Close arrest? I'll give you f'ing close arrest!' BAM! Collapse of OOD party.]

    For close arrest for a drunk this meant in a cell (if available) but with the door open and a sentry from his mess. This to stop the man choking on his vomit etc. Senior rate in his mess but with sentry. Crossed S Atlantic once with Jaunty under CR in his cabin, v un-chuffed senior CPOs on watch outside - serious charges - risk of self-harm/jump overboard maybe.
     
  13. Re: ECHR - Boyle v UK [2008] - Held: violation of Article 5.

    Seaweed in this day and age,we should be affording the same rights to the guys who risk there lives for us to uphold the right of Human rights lets face it some of the old naval routines where invented to keep the regulating Branch occupied.
     
  14. Re: ECHR - Boyle v UK [2008] - Held: violation of Article 5.

    i think it is now time to scrap Service Police,except in situations where there would not be normal police available ie at sea ,combat, knitting lessons what every body has is a right to life not some idiots interpretation of is own opinion of the law
     
  15. Re: ECHR - Boyle v UK [2008] - Held: violation of Article 5.

    Kineall, I knew I was missing something vital to my education! Perhaps Ganges62 could teach me how to knit? ;)
     
  16. Re: ECHR - Boyle v UK [2008] - Held: violation of Article 5.

    I always thought the reggie/OOD/ didn't classify you as drunk, merely that you were unfit to carry out duties you may reasonably be expected to perform.
    And the Doc can only certify you fit for detention on medical grounds (ie your drunken appearance is not due to other symptoms like head injury, diabetes, or drugs which put you at risk in detention)
     
  17. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Brendan, in the examples I produced the object was the welfare of the prisoner, to protect him from self-harm, death (some matelots have allegedly died because they were unsupervised when drunk) and from getting themselves deeper into the poo than they already were (and also considering the safety of the ship and other peole in it. who can't get out of the way of someone else as one can on shore). It's nothing to do with the Reggies' wishes, the rules for the OOD came from above, not below or sideways and are quoted as taut during my training. What I now foresee is that the cure may be worse than the disease and that people who should be protected from themselves won't be. We've just seen what presumption of bail can do ashore in the case of the police officer who shot himself, but not until he had seen off the chief witness against him.
     
  18. Seaweed you are talking utter crap. Do you really think that in this day and age the RN would absolve themselves from their responsibilities in regards to the protection of drunken personnel, Thereby opening themselves up to the possibility of legal action? The welfare of personnel is still considered to be of utmost importance. We just deal with it differently these days. Someone might be "invited" to spend the night in the drunk suite if no other offence than being drunk was involved. Why deprive someone of their liberty for simply having a few sherberts to many? The Armed Forces like everyone else and rightly so, in this land are subject to both Statutory Law and like it or not European Law.

    In my own humble opinion the Royal Navy Police operate professionally, efficiently, legally and fairly within the constraints of current legislation including PACE 1984. The days of Crushers being able to "stitch people up" are long gone. The RN Police do not procecute personnel, they simply investigate alledged offences which are reported to the Chain of Command who decide on any further action.
     
  19. Re: ECHR - Boyle v UK [2008] - Held: violation of Article 5.

    This is what IdoitDeeper wrote and hopefully it will make sence of whats going on here:
    QUOTE
    Seaweed you are talking utter crap. Do you really think that in this day and age the RN would absolve themselves from their responsibilities in regards to the protection of drunken personnel, Thereby opening themselves up to the possibility of legal action? The welfare of personnel is still considered to be of utmost importance. We just deal with it differently these days. Someone might be "invited" to spend the night in the drunk suite if no other offence than being drunk was involved. Why deprive someone of their liberty for simply having a few sherberts to many? The Armed Forces like everyone else and rightly so, in this land are subject to both Statutory Law and like it or not European Law.

    In my own humble opinion the Royal Navy Police operate professionally, efficiently, legally and fairly within the constraints of current legislation including PACE 1984. The days of Crushers being able to "stitch people up" are long gone. The RN Police do not prosecute personnel, they simply investigate alledged offences which are reported to the Chain of Command which decides on further action.

    END QUOTE
     
  20. Where on earth are you posting things Idoitdeeper, try putting them where they can be seen.
     

Share This Page