Preventive detention and the right to personal liberty and security under Article 5 ECHR

'Preventive detention' refers to detention by executive order as a  precautionary measure based on predicted criminal conduct. Detention is without criminal charge or trial as detention is based on the prediction of a future offence. This paper examines Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ('ECHR'), in particular Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(3). To explore this issue, this paper conducts a textual analysis of Article 5 and examines both the travaux preacuteparatoires of the ECHR, as well as jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This article argues that preventive detention is specifically provided for under the second ground of detention in Article 5(1)(c). A person in preventive detention, however, must be brought promptly before judicial authority under Article 5(3).

Preventative detention and the right of personal liberty and security under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Preventive detention enables a person to be deprived of liberty, by executive determination, for the purposes of safeguarding national security or public order without that person being charged or brought to trial. This paper examines Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 to assess whether preventive detention is prohibited by the phrase 'arbitrary arrest and detention '. To analyse this Article, this paper uses a textual and structural analysis of the Article, as well as reference to the travaux preparatoires and case law of the Human Rights Committee. This paper argues that preventive detention is not explicitly prohibited by Article 9(1) ofthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. If preventive detention is 'arbitrary', within the wide interpretation of that term as argued in this paper, it will be a permissible deprivation of personal liberty under Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Preventive detention will, however, always be considered 'arbitrary' if sajeguards for those arrested and detained are not complied with, in particular the right to judicial review of the lawfulness of detention.

The compliance of Australian preventative detention law with article 9(1) ICCPR

This thesis found that a provision of Australia's counter-terrorism policy, preventative detention, does not comply with a major international treaty, the ICCPR. This thesis provides an alternative model by which the Australian Government could achieve the legitimate purposes of preventative detention within the existing constraints of the Australian criminal law.

Looking behind the increase in custodial remand populations

Numbers, rates and proportions of those remanded in custody have increased significantly in recent decades across a range of jurisdictions. In Australia they have doubled since the early 1980s, such that close to one in four prisoners is currently unconvicted. Taking NSW as a case study and drawing on the recent New South Wales Law Reform Commission Report on Bail (2012), this article will identify the key drivers of this increase in NSW, predominantly a form of legislative hyperactivity involving constant changes to the Bail Act 1978 (NSW), changes which remove or restrict the presumption in favour of bail for a wide range of offences. The article will then examine some of the conceptual, cultural and practice shifts underlying the increase. These include: a shift away from a conception of bail as a procedural issue predominantly concerned with securing the attendance of the accused at trial and the integrity of the trial, to the use of bail for crime prevention purposes; the diminishing force of the presumption of innocence; the framing of a false opposition between an individual interest in liberty and a public interest in safety; a shift from determination of the individual case by reference to its own particular circumstances to determination by its classification within pre‐set legislative categories of offence types and previous convictions; a double jeopardy effect arising in relation to people with previous convictions for which they have already been punished; and an unacknowledged preventive detention effect arising from the increased emphasis on risk. Many of these conceptual shifts are apparent in the explosion in bail conditions and the KPI‐driven policing of bail conditions and consequent rise in revocations, especially in relation to juveniles. The paper will conclude with a note on the NSW Government’s response to the NSW LRC Report in the form of a Bail Bill (2013) and brief speculation as to its likely effects.

‘Only a pawn in their game’ : crime, risk and politics in the case of Robert Fardon

In 2003 Robert Fardon was the first prisoner to be detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the first of the new generation preventive detention laws enacted in Australia and directed at keeping sex offenders in prison or under supervision beyond the expiry of their sentences where a court decides, on the basis of psychiatric assessments, that unconditional release would create an unacceptable risk to the community. A careful examination of Fardon’s case shows the extent to which the administration of the regime was from the outset governed by politics and political calculation rather than the logic of risk management and community protection. In 2003 Robert Fardon was the first person detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (hereafter DPSOA), a newly enacted Queensland law aimed at the preventive detention of sex offenders. It was the first of a new generation of such laws introduced in Australia, now also in force in NSW, Western Australia and Victoria. The laws have been widely criticized by lawyers, academics and others (Keyzer and McSherry 2009; Edgely 2007). In this article I want to focus on the details of how the Queensland law was administered in Fardon’s case, he being perhaps the most well-known prisoner detained under such laws and certainly the longest held. It will show, I hope, that seemingly abstract rule of law principles invoked by other critics are not simply abstract: they afford a crucial practical safeguard against the corruption of criminal justice in which the ends both of community protection and of justice give way to opportunistic exploitation of ‘the mythic resonance of crime and punishment for electoral purposes’ (Scheingold 1998: 888).

La prisión preventiva y su relación con las políticas de seguridad

Resumen: La prisión preventiva es la medida cautelar más grave e intensa del proceso penal, en tanto importa la coactiva privación de la libertad personal del imputado. Se trata de un instituto problemático, que plantea un contrapunto particularmente dilemático con la presunción de inocencia. Posee un fundamento constitucional, directamente vinculado con la necesidad de asegurar, en la medida de lo posible, la realización del derecho penal material. Aunque la regla general es que durante el desarrollo del proceso penal el imputado debe permanecer en libertad, no puede negarse la existencia de ciertos supuestos legitimadores de la prisión preventiva. La realidad social y la necesidad de respuestas racionales a los fenómenos de la inseguridad y de la delincuencia violenta han revelado serias fisuras en el paradigma según el cual los únicos supuestos legitimadores son los llamados peligros procesales de fuga o entorpecimiento de la investigación. Surgen así como datos que deben ser también necesariamente tenidos en cuenta para la detención cautelar tanto la especial gravedad del delito cometido y su relación con la preservación del orden público, como la existencia de un peligro de reiteración delictiva constatable. Estos dos últimos presupuestos legitimadores de la prisión preventiva cobran independencia conceptual de los primeramente mencionados. Además, cuando la prisión preventiva se funda en la especial gravedad del delito o en el peligro de reiteración delictiva, se transforma, aunque sin mutar su esencia, en un instrumento más en las políticas de seguridad dirigidas a combatir el fenómeno de la delincuencia.

Sex offender risk assessment : consideration of human rights in community protection legislation

ObjectivesRisk assessments provided to judicial decision makers as a part of the current generation of legislation for protecting the public from sexual offenders can have a profound impact on the rights of individual offenders. This article will identify some of the human rights issues inherent in using the current assessment procedures to formulate and communicate risk as a forensic expert in cases involving civil commitment, preventive detention, extended supervision, or special conditions of parole. MethodBased on the current professional literature and applied experience in legal proceedings under community protection laws in the United States and New Zealand, potential threats to the rights of offenders are identified. Central to these considerations are issues of the accuracy of current risk assessment measures, communicating the findings of risk assessment appropriately to the court, and the availability of competent forensic mental health professionals in carrying out these functions. The role of the forensic expert is discussed in light of the competing demands of protecting individual human rights and community protection. ConclusionActuarial risk assessment represents the best practice for informing judicial decision makers in cases involving sex offenders, yet these measures currently demonstrate substantial limitations in predictive accuracy when applied to individual offenders. These limitations must be clearly articulated when reporting risk assessment findings. Sufficient risk assessment expertise should be available to provide a balanced application of community protection laws.

Prisão preventiva: direito à razoável duração e necessidade de prazo legal máximo

O direito à razoável duração do processo, inserido expressamente no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro a partir do advento da Emenda Constitucional 45/2004, já poderia ser inferido desde a incorporação da Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos, bem como ser considerado um corolário da garantia do devido processo legal. Todo indivíduo tem o direito a um processo sem dilações indevidas, em especial aquele que se encontre submetido a uma prisão preventiva, medida cautelar pessoal de extrema gravosidade. Nesse contexto, exsurge o direito que o indivíduo preso preventivamente tem de que o seu processo seja julgado em um prazo razoável ou de que ele seja desencarcerado, caso preso além da necessidade fática contida no caso concreto. Entretanto, a interpretação da garantia não pode restar somente à livre vontade dos aplicadores do direito, sendo necessária uma regulamentação legal efetiva da duração da prisão preventiva, por meio de prazos concretos nos quais o sujeito deverá ser posto em liberdade, ante a desídia estatal. Incorporando experiências estrangeiras, deve o legislador pátrio adotar marcos temporais legais, em que a prisão preventiva deverá cessar, caso excessivamente prolongada. Muito embora no ano de 2011 tenha sido reformada a tutela das medidas cautelares pessoais no Código de Processo Penal, o legislador ordinário não aprovou a imposição de limites de duração da prisão preventiva, permanecendo ao livre arbítrio das autoridades judiciárias a interpretação da garantia em referência. Assim, o Projeto de Lei do Novo Código de Processo Penal, atualmente em trâmite no Congresso Nacional, ao prever limites máximos de duração da prisão preventiva, dá uma efetiva regulamentação à garantia da duração razoável do imputado preso, devendo ser, espera-se, mantido no eventual texto final aprovado.

Determination of preventive maintenance lead time using hybrid analysis

The time for conducting Preventive Maintenance (PM) on an asset is often determined using a predefined alarm limit based on trends of a hazard function. In this paper, the authors propose using both hazard and reliability functions to improve the accuracy of the prediction particularly when the failure characteristic of the asset whole life is modelled using different failure distributions for the different stages of the life of the asset. The proposed method is validated using simulations and case studies.