## Facts

- Six members of the Murray family, Irish citizens living in Belfast, were involved in a security operation carried out by UK authorities in Northern Ireland during a period of terrorist violence.
- Security forces conducted a house search connected to an anti-terrorism investigation.
- During the operation, the authorities recorded personal particulars about members of the family and took photographs for identification purposes.
- The information gathering and photography were carried out without the applicants’ knowledge or consent, and some of it occurred outside any formal arrest procedure for certain family members.
- Margaret Murray was arrested during the operation under emergency powers used in terrorism investigations and was held for questioning for a short period before being released without charge.
- The applicants complained that the arrest lacked “reasonable suspicion,” that Margaret Murray was not promptly and adequately told why she had been arrested, and that domestic law did not provide compensation for Convention breaches.
- The applicants also argued that the recording and retention of photographs and personal data interfered with their private and family life and lacked sufficient legal controls.
- Domestic courts in Northern Ireland upheld the authorities’ actions as lawful under domestic law.
- The applicants brought proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights, and the case was later referred to the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) for judgment on the merits and just satisfaction.

## Issues

1. Whether Margaret Murray’s arrest and detention were justified by “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether Margaret Murray was informed promptly, in a language she understood, of the reasons for her arrest as required by Article 5(2).
3. Whether the applicants had an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5(5) if there was a breach of Article 5(1) or 5(2).
4. Whether taking, recording, and retaining photographs and personal information about the applicants interfered with private life under Article 8, and, if so, whether the interference was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society.
5. Whether the applicants had an effective domestic remedy for the alleged violations as required by Article 13.

## Decision

- Article 5(1)(c): No violation. The Court held that, assessed objectively and in context, the authorities had reasonable suspicion to justify Margaret Murray’s arrest and short detention in connection with terrorism-related offences.
- Article 5(2): No violation. The Court held that Margaret Murray was informed sufficiently and promptly of the reasons for her arrest when the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the operation were taken into account.
- Article 5(5): No violation. Because the Court found no breach of Article 5(1) or 5(2), the condition for a right to compensation under Article 5(5) was not met.
- Article 8: No violation. The Court accepted that recording personal details and taking/retaining photographs amounted to an interference with private life, but held the interference justified under Article 8(2) for the prevention of crime and protection of national security in the terrorism context.
- Article 13: No violation. The Court held that the applicants had remedies in domestic law (including civil actions and judicial review) capable of addressing the substance of the complaints and providing appropriate relief.

## Legal Principles

- Article 5(1)(c) permits arrest and detention on “reasonable suspicion” only where there is an objective basis for suspecting involvement in an offence; in terrorism cases, the assessment may take account of the security situation and operational realities, while still requiring justification capable of review.
- Article 5(2) requires that an arrested person be told promptly, in simple terms, the essential reasons for the arrest so the person can challenge its lawfulness; what is “sufficient” may depend on context and what the detainee can understand from the circumstances.
- Article 5(5) provides a right to compensation only where there has been a deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5; without a prior breach of another Article 5 paragraph, no compensation right arises under Article 5(5).
- Recording identifying particulars and taking/retaining photographs by state authorities can fall within “private life” for Article 8(1) purposes.
- An Article 8 interference may be justified under Article 8(2) where it is based on accessible and foreseeable law, pursues legitimate aims (including national security and prevention of disorder or crime), and is proportionate to those aims.
- Article 13 requires a domestic remedy that can examine the substance of an arguable Convention complaint and offer appropriate relief; it does not require a particular form of remedy, and judicial review and civil claims can satisfy the requirement even in security-sensitive cases.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber held that Margaret Murray’s arrest met the Article 5(1)(c) reasonable-suspicion standard and that she was adequately informed of the reasons for her arrest under Article 5(2); it also found that police collection and retention of the family’s photographs and personal data interfered with private life but was justified under Article 8(2), and that domestic remedies were effective under Article 13, resulting in no violations.


Murray v. United Kingdom, Application no. 14310/88 (1994)