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

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by thingy, Jan 15, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military 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.


    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]

    First posted on Rum Ration
  2. Errm, I thought the CO was

    Armed Forces Act 2006 making this point:

    And Sections 75 to 77 of the Army Act 1955:

    The fact that the CO could be (wheel the guilty b*stard in) considered part of the persecution would make him similar to the entirely legal under ECHR "prosecuting magistrate" role in Code Napoleonic countries?
  3. Now i don't understand all the legal mumbo jumbo, but surely the answer is to tell the ECHR to fcuk off and die??????
  4. As far as I'm concerned, seeing as the CO was acting under the authority of an Act of the UK Parliament et al, the European Court of Human Rights can, with respect to their learned judges, fcuk of and remember why they aren't all speaking German!
  5. Cause the ECHR webserver is having issues, the actual meat of the judgement:

    So, essentially, what they are saying is that COs are not impartial, even though they are authorised by law. Fair snuff, if that's the law our bunch of poliscoundrels have signed us up to. Clearly time to withdraw from that treaty and tear up the HRA, then. Thank God the shit only got three grand.
  6. And that 3 grand, and more I hope, will go to his brief!