Information Note on the Court’s case-law 16
March 2000
Jordan v. the United Kingdom - 30280/96
Judgment 14.3.2000 [Section III]
Article 5
Article 5-3
Judge or other officer exercising judicial power
Impartiality of officer ordering detention of soldier: violation
Facts: The applicant, a soldier, was arrested after having gone missing from his unit. His commanding officer dealt with the charge summarily and sentenced him to 28 days' imprisonment. He was due to be released on 27 May 1995, but was kept in detention on the basis of other suspected offences which were being investigated. He was brought before his commanding officer on 16 June and again on 29 August 1995 for charges to be read to him. On the latter date the commanding officer remanded the applicant for trial by court martial. In November 1995 the applicant brought habeas corpus proceedings, claiming that he had not been given a formal hearing at which he was informed of the case against him and given an opportunity to argue in favour of his release because of the delay in arranging the court martial. The Army admitted that he had not been charged until 16 June as a result of an oversight and undertook to release him to open arrest, which it did on 11 December. The applicant subsequently brought proceedings for compensation in respect of his detention between 27 May and 11 December. The Army accepted that the detention had been unlawful and the matter was settled by payment of compensation and costs. The applicant was tried by court martial on a number of charges and in November 1999 was sentenced to imprisonment. An appeal is pending.
Law: Artice 5 § 3: The applicant was arrested on reasonable suspicion of an offence and his close arrest amounted to detention. As in the case of Hood (judgment of 18 February 1999), the commanding officer was liable to play a central role in the subsequent prosecution and his responsibility for order and discipline provided an additional reason for the accused reasonably to doubt his impartiality when deciding on the necessity of detention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 5: The applicant did not have an enforceable right to compensation.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: There is no evidence that the applicant would not have been detained or would have been release earlier if there had been no violation, and the judgment in itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction. The Court made an award in respect of costs.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy