The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. The applicants were citizens of London, Mrs. Mulkiye Osman, who was widowed by Mr. Paul Page-Leiws on March 7 1988 when he shot and killed her husband Ali Osman, as well as Ahmet Osman, her son who studied under Paget-Lewis at Homerton House School. The Osman's press charges against UK authorities for failing to act on threats Paget-Lewis was making against their family. The family argued that authorities were given ample enough warning to act and prevent the murder and assault that occurred on their family.
The application of the exclusionary rule formulated by the House of Lords in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police ( AC 53) as a defense against actions brought against the police, constituted a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court which proved to be in breach of article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Likewise, in the specific case of Osman v U.K, it was the Osmans' position that law authorities had neglected the rights provided them in act 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1 Under Article 2, it was ruled by The Court that the states had three main duties, a duty to refrain from unlawful killing, a duty to investigate suspicious deaths and, in certain circumstances, a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life. In the case Osman v UK  it was summarized that "United Kingdom - alleged failure of authorities to protect right to life of first applicant's husband and of second applicant from threat posed by individual and lawfulness of restrictions on applicants' right of access to a court to sue authorities for damage caused by said failure 2"
Criminal Procedure Code was established in 1952 and made effective on September 29 under Law No.35. It regulates the specific requirements for lawful investigations, trials, accusations, appellate reviews and judgments. It specifies the exact rules for arrests, right to counsel, proof of guilt, trial, searches and limitations. A group immunity is not just immune to the obligations of trial but also arrest under these circumstances, making it first mandatory to be reviewed by a board established by legal authorities before facing a trial. While this appears to be unconstitutional, Osman v UK, as Gearty would, was established with the protection of the citizens rights in mind.
In Gearty's publication "Unraveling Osman," he thoroughly assesses the judgment handed down in the Osman v UK trial. He notes that, "The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights inOsmanvUnited Kingdom, decided in October 1998, has proved very controversial. Its implications for the UK law of negligence appear to be immense. Not the least of the complexities associated with the decision is the widespread perception that the reasoning of the Court is extremely difficult to understand, indeed, that it is at times contradictory 3." Gearty condemns the courts for the laps in judgment they demonstrate in this case.
This is a bold statement made by Gearty and it is basically his position that the judgment in the case was passed with no regard for what would be the best benefit for the people as well as law enforcement. He goes on to point