Murray v. United Kingdom was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in 1994 to determine if part of the United Kingdom's anti-terrorism laws were in violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. European Court of Human Rights building in Strasbourg The European Court of Human Rights, often referred to informally as the Strasbourg Court, was created to systematise the hearing of human rights complaints from Council of Europe member states. ... Terror attack in Jerusalem The word terrorism is controversial, with no universally agreed definition. ... The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe† to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. ...

The case was referred to the Court on April 7, 1993 from an application lodged on September 28, 1988 relating to events occuring in 1982. The case was heard in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on January 24, 1994 and the Chamber delivered their judgement on October 28, 1994.

The applicants were six Irish citizens, all members of the same family - Margaret Murray, Thomas Murray, Mark Murray, Alana Murray, Michaela Murray and Rossina Murray.

In June 1982 two brothers of Margaret Murray were convicted in the United States in connection with the supplying of weapons to the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). Mrs Murray, her husband Thomas, and their four children were then residing in Belfast. The Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA; more commonly referred to as the IRA, the Provos, or by some of its supporters as the army or the Ra) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation. ... Belfast (Béal Feirste in Irish) is the second-largest city in Ireland. ...

On the morning of July 26, Margaret Murray was arrested by the Army on suspicion of fund-raising for the PIRA in connection with her brothers' activities and taken to the Springfield Road screening centre. The style and procedure of her arrest was under section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, her suspected offences were contained with section 21 of the act and also section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The Prevention of Terrorism Acts were a series of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom from 1974 to 1989, which conferred emergency powers upon police forces where they suspected terrorism. ...

At Springfield Road, Mrs Murray gave her name but refused to answer any other questions and she also declineed to be photographed or to submit to an examination by a medical orderly. She sat through two short interviews and was also photographed without her knowledge or consent. She was released after two hours without being charged, the "screening proforma" record form did not list any offence.

On February 9, 1984 Mrs Murray brought an action before the High Court against the Ministry of Defence for false imprisonment and other torts, arguing that her arrest and detention were illegal on a number of grounds - notably that they had been without genuine suspicion that she had committed an offence or any genuine intention to question her, it had been a "fishing expedition" for improper purposes. In his judgment of October 25, 1985 the judge dismissed all the plaintiff's arguments. Mrs Murray took her case to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously rejected her claims on February 20, 1987. The case was appealed to the House of Lords - on the manner of the arrest, the use of the screening proforma, and the length of detention - and was unanimously rejected on May 25, 1988. The term High Court could refer to one of the following institutions: High Court of England and Wales High Court of Australia The Four Courts of Ireland The High Court of Justiciary in Scotland And the 18 High Courts of India The High Court of Andhra Pradesh The High Court... This articles deals with the British ministry, see defence minister for other countries. ... In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away of a person against the persons will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment (confinement without legal authority) for ransom or in furtherance of another crime. ... In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ... Court of Appeals is the title of certain appellate courts in various jurisdictions. ... This article is about the British House of Lords. ...

The Murray's applied to the ECHR, as previously noted, in 1988. Mrs Murray stating that her arrest and detention were a violation of Article 5 (paragraphs 1,2 and 5) and that the photograph and record taking was in breach of Article 8. Her family also applied under the same parts of Article 5 becuase they had been required to assemble in a single room of their house while Mrs Murray prepared to leave with the Army. They also applied under Article 8 in regard to the recording and retention of personal details. The entire family also applied that under Article 8 regarding the entry and visual search of their home and under Article 13 that no effective remedies existed under domestic law. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also known as the European Convention on Human Rights, was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe[1] in 1950 to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. ... The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also known as the European Convention on Human Rights, was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe[1] in 1950 to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. ... The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also known as the European Convention on Human Rights, was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe[1] in 1950 to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. ...

In February 1993 the Commission supported the Murray's application in part. There had been a violation of Article 5, but no violation of Article 8, or of Article 13 in regards to the entry and search, or the taking and keeping of a photograph and personal details, or concerning the lack of remedies in domestic law. The case went to a public hearing on January 24, 1994.

At the hearing the Court gave significant weight to the need for a democratic society to protect itself against the threat of organised terrorism and to the problems involved in the arrest and detention of persons suspected of terrorist-linked offences.

The Court dismissed Mrs Murray's claims against her arrest and detention under 5-1-c; dismissed her contention that she had not been informed promptly of the reasons for the arrest and of any charge (5-2). Because there had been no violation of 5-1 or 5-2 in the Court's opinion there could be no consideration of 5-5. The Court decided that there had been no violation of Article 8 as the Army's action had been in accordance with the law, as contained in paragraph two of the Article, and had not been disproportionate to the aim pursued. The Court dismissed the Murray's claims of a violation of Article 13.

The Court's decisions were by majority - 14-4 in regard of Article 5-1, 13-5 in regard of Article 5-2, 13-5 in regard of Article 5-5, 15-3 in regard of Article 8, and unanimous in regard of Article 13.

External link

• http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1994/39.html