Toque de recolher e carrocinha de menores funcionavam no tempo da ditadura militar.


Toque de recolher e carrocinha de menores funcionavam no tempo da ditadura militar…
(Leida Diniz, promotora de Justiça).

https://blogdomaurosilva.wordpress.com/

Anúncios

2 Respostas para “Toque de recolher e carrocinha de menores funcionavam no tempo da ditadura militar.

  1. Prezado Mauro
    Olá!
    Vi que você comentou no artigo que escrevi no Vi o Mundo : Toque de Recolher- Juventude ou Gado, que há duas decisões da Corte Européia de Direitos Humanos sobe o tema.
    Seria possivel me passar a decisão ou referência?
    Seria de grande utilidade para mim.
    Grata

    Kenarik Boujikian Felippe
    Juiza e Direito na 16ª Vara Criminal
    kenark@uol.com.br

    • Prezada juíza Kenarik,
      Eu tenho a notícia de um caso, relatado pela BBC (texto abaixo).
      Em 2005, um adolescente de 15 anos venceu uma ação judicial contra o “toque de recolher” em Richmond, sudoeste de Londres, Inglaterra. Ele alegou que o “toque de recolher” violava a Convenção Européia dos Direitos Humanos: “eles não devem ser autorizados a me tratar como um criminoso só porque eu sou menor de 16”.
      A Suprema Corte Britânica decidiu que a lei não dá à polícia o poder de prisão, e os agentes não poderiam forçar alguém a ir com eles. “Todos nós temos o direito de andar nas ruas sem a interferência de policiais ou organizações da sociedade civil, a menos que eles possuem o direito comum ou de poderes legais para nos parar (…) Se o Parlamento considerou que tal poder era necessária, ela deveria ter dito isso, e identificadas as circunstâncias em que se destina o poder a ser exercido”. (Em tradução livre do texto em inglês. Veja a notícia original aqui).

      Boy, 15, wins curfew legal battle
      Youths – generic
      Richmond Council says the curfews do help cut anti-social behaviour
      A 15-year-old boy has won a landmark High Court challenge to the legality of child curfew zones used to tackle anti-social behaviour.

      The teenager said the use of dispersal zones in Richmond, south-west London, breached his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Unaccompanied under-16s found in zones after 9pm can be held and escorted home, whether badly behaved or not.

      The Home Office said it would be appealing against the ruling.

      The police and Richmond Council had argued that curfew zones reduced anti-social behaviour.

      The High Court ruled that the law did not give the police a power of arrest, and officers could not force someone to come with them.

      … They shouldn’t be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I’m under 16
      Teenager known as “W”

      Curfews ‘demonise young’
      One area’s fight for order

      Lord Justice Brooke said: “… All of us have the right to walk the streets without interference from police constables or CSOs unless they possess common law or statutory powers to stop us.

      “If Parliament considered that such a power was needed, it should have said so, and identified the circumstances in which it intended the power to be exercised.”

      In a statement after the ruling the boy, known in the case as “W” and described as a “model student”, said: “Of course I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I’ve done something wrong.

      “But they shouldn’t be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I’m under 16.

      “I am very happy with the outcome it is a good victory. I’m glad that the police can’t just use force against us anymore.

      “I am happy that I won’t get into trouble with the police just for being young.”

      These powers provide the police with a powerful tool to tackle intimidation and anti-social behaviour by groups of people
      Home Office spokeswoman

      Q&A: Teenage curfews

      BBC Home Affairs correspondent Rory McLean said the test case ruling had major implications for the government’s anti-social behaviour policy and may require legislation in order to deal with the issue.

      A Home Office spokeswoman said dispersal zones already in place and future applications were unaffected by the judgment.

      “These powers provide the police with a powerful tool to tackle intimidation and anti-social behaviour by groups of people,” she said.

      “Whilst not limited to young people, ‘teenagers hanging around’ is a big cause of concern to the public as cited in the British Crime Survey.”

      HAVE YOUR SAY
      What about law abiding citizen’s human rights?
      Pauline Yates, Suffolk

      Send us your comments

      During the case heard in May, Javan Herberg, appearing for the teenager, said the curfew zones violated the human rights of “wholly innocent” young people.

      He told the court that more than 400 zones had been introduced under the 2003 Anti-Social Behaviour Act. While this case involved Richmond, its implications could be much wider, he said.

      The Home Office, backed by lawyers for the police and council, argued the application for judicial review should be dismissed and said the zones did not breach human rights or common law.

      They said the 15-year-old could not bring the claim because he had never been stopped by police inside a dispersal area.

      The boy was backed by civil rights group Liberty.

      Alex Gask, Liberty’s legal Officer acting for “W”, said: “This is a victory for the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, no matter what their age, not to be subjected to coercive powers without good cause”.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4699095.stm

Deixe um comentário

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair / Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Google+

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google+. Sair / Alterar )

Conectando a %s