Crowd

control will not constitute an Article 5(1) deprivation of liberty if it is

done in good faith and is proportionate and enforced for no longer than

reasonably necessary

When

interpreting Article 5(1) the purpose of employing crowd control in a

particular case is not relevant to whether the crowd control amounts to a

deprivation of liberty

Because

Article 5(1) is unqualified, as Lord Hoffman rightly observed, it will only be

the rarest case, such as this one, where an Article 5(1) deprivation can be

justified

The ECtHR ruled that while there was a deprivation of liberty, it was justified under Article 5(1)(c) as being necessary for the prevention of public disorder.

Ms Austin was detained within the police cordon for seven hours. There were no toilet facilities or shelter. She used a megaphone to discourage people from pushing. She was not involved in any violent acts

Ms Austin was detained within the police cordon for seven hours, there were no toilet facilities or shelter. Ms Austin was one of the 40% of the crowd that were actively hostile. She used a megaphone to encourage others to be hostile

Ms Austin was detained within the police cordon. Her intentions and her actions were to demonstrate peacefully. She was cold and wet and after two hours, as part of a controlled release, the police allowed her to leave the cordon so she could collect her baby from a crèche

436.35 en/and 4435.56.

436.35 en/and 66.6.

436.35 en/and 492.84.

145.45 en/and 1478.52.