iHateLaw
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Hi!
I've been stumped on how to write this essay and make it a maximum of 3,000 words long. I'd appreciate any help. As the title states, its in regards to Article 2 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.


Here's the general storyline.

-Abdul's been arrested for common assault and was therefore taken into police custody.
-Abdul has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and has a history of self harm.
-The duty officers at the police station are NOT aware of this. They believe him to be high.
-Later, Abdul becomes agitated, calling for help, saying he's being possessed by evil spirits.
-Officers are short staffed. One leaves a message for the duty doctor, who hasn't made anyone aware that she has changed her number, so the message doesn't actually get to her.
-Abdul is distressed and is advised to sleep and wait until the morning.
- He's found dead the next morning, he's hung himself with his bed sheet.

-Case is referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
-It's led by a former officer of the police force in question.
-The investigators fail to seize and preserve evidence, including CCTV from inside and outside Abdul's cell.
-No statements are taken from the officers in question.
-Those that have made statements have been allowed to confer with other officers.
-Several statements are made 6 months after Abdul's death.
-IPCC fails to keep Abdul's family up to date on the investigation.
-Report is published 2 years later.
-An inquest is held.
-Abdul's family is denied legal aid.
-Inquest hears that the CCTV footage of the night of Abdul's death has been destroyed.
-Abdul's mother takes the case to the High Court both in relation to his treatment in the police station, and the investigation.

My task is to: Discuss and support with relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights and UK courts the possible violations of the European Convention on Human Rights involved.

I've already written an introduction, which I think is good enough, and I've written about the Osman Principle. I don't know if I've written enough about it, and what else I should write.

Anyone out there who can help with a general structure and perhaps focal points?

Many thanks!
0
reply
cliffg
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by iHateLaw)
Hi!
I've been stumped on how to write this essay and make it a maximum of 3,000 words long. I'd appreciate any help. As the title states, its in regards to Article 2 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.


Here's the general storyline.

-Abdul's been arrested for common assault and was therefore taken into police custody.
-Abdul has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and has a history of self harm.
-The duty officers at the police station are NOT aware of this. They believe him to be high.
-Later, Abdul becomes agitated, calling for help, saying he's being possessed by evil spirits.
-Officers are short staffed. One leaves a message for the duty doctor, who hasn't made anyone aware that she has changed her number, so the message doesn't actually get to her.
-Abdul is distressed and is advised to sleep and wait until the morning.
- He's found dead the next morning, he's hung himself with his bed sheet.

-Case is referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
-It's led by a former officer of the police force in question.
-The investigators fail to seize and preserve evidence, including CCTV from inside and outside Abdul's cell.
-No statements are taken from the officers in question.
-Those that have made statements have been allowed to confer with other officers.
-Several statements are made 6 months after Abdul's death.
-IPCC fails to keep Abdul's family up to date on the investigation.
-Report is published 2 years later.
-An inquest is held.
-Abdul's family is denied legal aid.
-Inquest hears that the CCTV footage of the night of Abdul's death has been destroyed.
-Abdul's mother takes the case to the High Court both in relation to his treatment in the police station, and the investigation.

My task is to: Discuss and support with relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights and UK courts the possible violations of the European Convention on Human Rights involved.

I've already written an introduction, which I think is good enough, and I've written about the Osman Principle. I don't know if I've written enough about it, and what else I should write.

Anyone out there who can help with a general structure and perhaps focal points?

Many thanks!
Begin at the end. Why is she in the High Court - effect of Human Rights Act in particular ss 2 & 6.

Salman v Turkey (2002) 34 EHRR 425 - positive obligation on state when persons taken into custody to protect their life. Proactive duty to take measures (medical, preventitive). Incumbent upon state to provide satisfactory account of death. Rebuttable presumption against state.

Velikova v Bulgaria [2000] ECHR 41488/98 - Welfare of detainees.

Tanribilir v Turkey [2000] ECHR 21422/93 - Duty to supervise detainees and prevent suicide.

Jordan v UK (2001) - "Jordan criteria" duty on state to investigate deaths - investigation must be independent, effective, prompt, open to public scrutiny, proper involvement of next of kin - also Edwards v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 19, Amin [2003] UKHL 51, Osman - disproportionate burden also Mastromatteo v Italy [2003] ECHR 37703/97.

Does inquest fulfill this duty if IPCC inquiry does not?

What remedy does mother seek? Is it available? Right to an effective remedy.

There's more but that's a start for you.
0
reply
iHateLaw
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by cliffg)
Begin at the end. Why is she in the High Court - effect of Human Rights Act in particular ss 2 & 6.

Salman v Turkey (2002) 34 EHRR 425 - positive obligation on state when persons taken into custody to protect their life. Proactive duty to take measures (medical, preventitive). Incumbent upon state to provide satisfactory account of death. Rebuttable presumption against state.

Velikova v Bulgaria [2000] ECHR 41488/98 - Welfare of detainees.

Tanribilir v Turkey [2000] ECHR 21422/93 - Duty to supervise detainees and prevent suicide.

Jordan v UK (2001) - "Jordan criteria" duty on state to investigate deaths - investigation must be independent, effective, prompt, open to public scrutiny, proper involvement of next of kin - also Edwards v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 19, Amin [2003] UKHL 51, Osman - disproportionate burden also Mastromatteo v Italy [2003] ECHR 37703/97.

Does inquest fulfill this duty if IPCC inquiry does not?

What remedy does mother seek? Is it available? Right to an effective remedy.

There's more but that's a start for you.
Thank you very much! This helped a lot, although I was still stumped on Article 3 but I found help for that too.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (31)
13.84%
Virtual campus tours/open days (50)
22.32%
Live streaming events (21)
9.38%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (21)
9.38%
A uni comparison tool (51)
22.77%
An in-person event when available (50)
22.32%

Watched Threads

View All