## Facts

- Four British citizens were arrested in Northern Ireland on suspicion of terrorism-related activity.
- The arrests and detentions were carried out under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, permitting detention up to 48 hours and extension by the Secretary of State for up to five additional days.
- Each applicant was held in police custody for roughly four to six days; the shortest detention was about four days and six hours.
- During detention, the applicants were interrogated about suspected terrorist offences and had access to legal advisers subject to some delay.
- None of the applicants was brought before a judge or other judicial officer during custody.
- None was charged; all were released without charge when their detention periods ended.
- The United Kingdom had not lodged a derogation under Article 15 from the protections in Article 5 for the relevant period.

## Issues

1. Whether holding suspects for approximately four to six days without being brought before a judge satisfied the Article 5(3) requirement that an arrested person be brought “promptly” before a judicial authority.
2. Whether domestic procedures (including habeas corpus and judicial review) provided a “speedy” judicial decision on the lawfulness of detention as required by Article 5(4).
3. Whether the arrests and detentions were lawful and non-arbitrary under Article 5(1)(c) as based on reasonable suspicion and procedure prescribed by law.
4. Whether the applicants had an effective remedy under Article 13 for the alleged Convention violations.
5. Whether the government could rely on emergency conditions to justify extended detention in the absence of an Article 15 derogation.

## Decision

- The court held there was a violation of Article 5(3) because even the shortest detention (about four days and six hours) exceeded what “promptness” permits without judicial control.
- The court found no violation of Article 5(1) because the detentions were effected under a lawful domestic scheme and were based on reasonable suspicion.
- The court found no separate violation of Article 5(4), treating the lack of prompt judicial supervision as the core defect addressed under Article 5(3).
- The court found no violation of Article 13, concluding domestic law provided remedies capable in principle of addressing Convention complaints.
- Article 15 did not apply because no derogation had been notified; the government could not use emergency conditions to relax Article 5(3) standards.

## Legal Principles

- “Promptly” in Article 5(3) is an autonomous Convention standard imposing strict time limits on detention without appearance before a judge.
- The investigative difficulties associated with terrorism do not, by themselves, justify detention beyond the Article 5(3) promptness requirement absent a valid Article 15 derogation.
- Compliance with domestic law and reasonable suspicion under Article 5(1) does not cure a failure to provide early judicial supervision required by Article 5(3).
- Where the essence of the complaint is the absence of prompt judicial control, the court may decline to find a separate breach of Article 5(4).
- Article 13 requires an effective remedy in principle for Convention grievances, but does not require additional remedies beyond the Convention’s specific procedural guarantees where adequate avenues exist.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that detaining terrorism suspects for roughly four to six days without bringing them before a judge violated Article 5(3)’s promptness requirement, and that emergency conditions could not justify a lower standard because no Article 15 derogation was in force; however, the detentions were otherwise lawful under Article 5(1), with no separate violation found under Articles 5(4) or 13.


Brogan & Others v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 11209/84, 11234/84, 11266/84 & 11386/85 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1988)