Case Comment
The Legality of ‘Kettling’ after A ustin
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9196691 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Naomi Oreb (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 76 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 735-742 |
| Publication date | 2013-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Modern Law Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0026-7961 • E-ISSN: 1468-2230 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1468-2230.12032 |
| OpenAlex | W1894520542 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
This case comment considers the E uropean C ourt of H uman R ights decision of A ustin v U nited K ingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 14. A ustin claimed, unsuccessfully, that police kettling at a public protest in L ondon amounted to a violation of her right to liberty under A rticle 5 of the E uropean C onvention of H uman R ights. This case comment suggests that the court took an unexpected and unorthodox approach to the issue of ‘deprivation’ within A rticle 5. This decision may come to undermine the protections afforded by A rticle 5 and extend the current exceptions to A rticle 5 to an indefinite range of situations
Law and economics · Political science · Principle of legality · Sociology · Criminal Law and Evidence · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · Law
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |