Caroline LUCAS v the United Kingdom - 39013/02 [2003] ECHR 717 (18 March 2003)

Caroline LUCAS v the United Kingdom - 39013/02 [2003] ECHR 717 (18 March 2003)

The Court found that the definition of breach of the peace under Scottish law is sufficiently precise and objective, that the applicant's conduct could be alarming or disturbing to a reasonable person, and that her arrest, detention, and conviction were lawful, pursued legitimate aims of public safety and prevention...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] ECHR 717
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: United Kingdom
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
18 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Admissibility Decision
Outcome
application inadmissible
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Breach of the Peace, Lawfulness of Detention
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Breach of the Peace Lawfulness of Detention

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

United Kingdom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Admissibility Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's arrest and detention for breach of the peace violated Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the interference with the applicant's rights under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly) was 'prescribed by law' and 'necessary in a democratic society'

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the definition of breach of the peace under Scottish law is sufficiently precise and objective, that the applicant's conduct could be alarming or disturbing to a reasonable person, and that her arrest, detention, and conviction were lawful, pursued legitimate aims of public safety and prevention of disorder, and were proportionate. Therefore, there was no violation of Articles 5, 10, or 11 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

application inadmissible

Orders

  • The application is declared inadmissible.