Knowledge (XXG)

Eiseman-Renyard and others v the United Kingdom

Source 📝

254:
during the royal wedding; however, the European Court stated that there was no evidence of this and that the police had sufficient grounds for arrest due to suspicion of imminent illegal activities and that a fair balance had been made between the claimants' right to liberty and the safety of the public. Accordingly, all of the claimants' cases were dismissed as inadmissible based on the fact they were "manifestly ill-founded".
253:
The case was heard on the grounds of an alleged deprivation of liberty under Article 5. The court found that certain types of preemptive detention were considered legal in order to allow police forces to be effective. The claimants had claimed the police had adopted an illegal policy for arrests
240:
on a point of law that they believed the arrests were unlawful and contrary to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court denied this on the grounds that the High Court's judgment had not been challenged. Permission was granted to appeal to the
208:
officer. Eiseman-Renyard and one other were dressed as zombies as part of a "Queer Resistance" plan to hold a "zombie picnic"; the police arrested them based on a leaflet that suggested that "maggot confetti" would be thrown. The remainder were arrested by the
404: 172:
based on intelligence that the group intended to disrupt the wedding. The claimants argued that they had been arrested on no valid preventive basis. The Court dismissed the claim as inadmissible due to ill-founded beliefs.
245:, who ruled that the police had the right to detain someone to stop them from imminently committing an offence. Leave was then granted to the claimants to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. 414: 165: 257:
The case was reported in the media as precedent for the police to arrest people as a preventative measure even without specific prior knowledge of any planned criminality.
225:
due to the large number of monarchists on the streets supporting the royal wedding. The claimants were all later released without charge after the wedding had finished.
169: 196:
objected to the wedding and planned ways in which to disrupt it. The defendants were involved in three plans. One was attempting to go to a republican street party at
164:
is a 2019 European Court of Human Rights case between Hannah Eiseman-Renyard and seven other applicants against the United Kingdom for an alleged breach of
409: 372: 236:
dismissed the claims on the grounds that the arrests had been proportionate to prevent any immediate breach of the peace. They appealed to the
320: 242: 237: 193: 201: 185: 214: 217:
after being found in possession of republican placards and megaphones having intended to join a Republic tea party in
17: 210: 373:"Police right to pre-emptive arrests backed by judges after eight-year legal battle by "zombie" protestors" 233: 266: 134: 222: 205: 189: 116: 218: 229: 197: 168:. The case revolved around the Metropolitan Police arresting the claimants prior to the 181: 398: 47: 294: 129: 348: 221:. The police arrested them on the grounds that they could have caused a 405:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom
321:"Police acted legally over royal wedding arrests, court rules" 204:
political pressure group but was arrested by a plainclothes
27:
2019 court case from the European Court of Human Rights
166:
Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
147: 106: 96: 88: 80: 56: 46: 39: 34: 371: 295:"Eiseman-Renyard and others v. the United Kingdom" 415:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton 192:in London on 29 April 2011. The defendants being 170:wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton 349:"Royal wedding 'zombies' lose human rights case" 52:Eiseman-Renyard and others v. the United Kingdom 18:Eiseman-Reynard and others v. the United Kingdom 161:Eiseman-Renyard and others v the United Kingdom 35:Eiseman-Renyard and others v the United Kingdom 8: 278: 288: 286: 284: 282: 31: 7: 343: 341: 314: 312: 243:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 25: 370:Hymas, Charles (28 March 2019). 410:2019 in United Kingdom case law 319:Bowcott, Owen (28 March 2019). 228:The claimants then requested a 1: 215:Charing Cross railway station 184:, then second in line to the 431: 351:. BBC News. 28 March 2019 152: 143: 122: 111: 101: 211:British Transport Police 81:Language of proceedings 40:Submitted 8 August 2017 232:of their arrests. The 89:Nationality of parties 234:High Court of Justice 267:Preventive detention 42:Decided 5 March 2019 378:The Daily Telegraph 223:breach of the peace 206:Metropolitan Police 190:Catherine Middleton 107:Court composition 157: 156: 148:Instruments cited 16:(Redirected from 422: 389: 388: 386: 384: 375: 367: 361: 360: 358: 356: 345: 336: 335: 333: 331: 316: 307: 306: 304: 302: 290: 219:Trafalgar Square 32: 21: 430: 429: 425: 424: 423: 421: 420: 419: 395: 394: 393: 392: 382: 380: 369: 368: 364: 354: 352: 347: 346: 339: 329: 327: 318: 317: 310: 300: 298: 292: 291: 280: 275: 263: 251: 238:Court of Appeal 230:judicial review 198:Red Lion Square 179: 139: 115: 74: 72: 70: 68: 66: 64: 61: 41: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 428: 426: 418: 417: 412: 407: 397: 396: 391: 390: 362: 337: 308: 277: 276: 274: 271: 270: 269: 262: 259: 250: 247: 200:hosted by the 186:British throne 182:Prince William 178: 175: 155: 154: 150: 149: 145: 144: 141: 140: 138: 137: 135:Jovan Ilievski 132: 126: 120: 119: 109: 108: 104: 103: 99: 98: 94: 93: 90: 86: 85: 82: 78: 77: 58: 54: 53: 50: 48:Full case name 44: 43: 37: 36: 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 427: 416: 413: 411: 408: 406: 403: 402: 400: 379: 374: 366: 363: 350: 344: 342: 338: 326: 322: 315: 313: 309: 296: 289: 287: 285: 283: 279: 272: 268: 265: 264: 260: 258: 255: 248: 246: 244: 239: 235: 231: 226: 224: 220: 216: 212: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 176: 174: 171: 167: 163: 162: 151: 146: 142: 136: 133: 131: 128: 127: 125: 121: 118: 114: 110: 105: 100: 95: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 59: 55: 51: 49: 45: 38: 33: 30: 19: 381:. Retrieved 377: 365: 353:. Retrieved 328:. Retrieved 325:The Guardian 324: 299:. Retrieved 256: 252: 227: 180: 160: 159: 158: 123: 117:Aleš Pejchal 112: 102:Inadmissible 62: 29: 194:republicans 399:Categories 273:References 188:, married 177:Background 153:Article 5 130:Tim Eicke 113:President 383:28 March 355:28 March 330:28 March 301:28 March 261:See also 202:Republic 76:58462/17 73:58377/17 71:58343/17 69:58333/17 67:58326/17 65:58019/17 63:57918/17 60:57884/17 297:. Hudoc 92:British 84:English 293:ECHR. 124:Judges 97:Ruling 385:2019 357:2019 332:2019 303:2019 249:Case 57:Case 213:at 401:: 376:. 340:^ 323:. 311:^ 281:^ 387:. 359:. 334:. 305:. 20:)

Index

Eiseman-Reynard and others v. the United Kingdom
Full case name
Aleš Pejchal
Tim Eicke
Jovan Ilievski
Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton
Prince William
British throne
Catherine Middleton
republicans
Red Lion Square
Republic
Metropolitan Police
British Transport Police
Charing Cross railway station
Trafalgar Square
breach of the peace
judicial review
High Court of Justice
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Preventive detention




"Eiseman-Renyard and others v. the United Kingdom"

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.