header-logo header-logo

14 February 2008
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

A military lottery

The ECtHR ruling in Boyle calls into question the rules surrounding pre-trial detention, say Tim Lawson-Cruttenden and Lacie Kerner

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) gave its judgment in January in Boyle v (App No 55434/00) [2008] All ER (D) 02 (Jan). The case was in relation to a British Army soldier serving as a gunner with the 12th Regiment Royal Artillery stationed in . The applicant was arrested following an allegation of rape in 1999 and was subsequently charged by his commanding officer (CO) with indecent assault under the Army Act 1955 (AA 1955), s 70. Following the charge, the applicant’s CO ordered detention under close arrest pending trial. The applicant argued in the ECtHR that by placing him under close arrest the CO had infringed his right under Art 5 (right to liberty and security of person) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) on the basis that a CO does not constitute an “officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” and that his

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll