Anti terror laws ruled illegal..

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Nidge

Don't search them just shoot them, they can't complain then can they??

Shoot who? The people who brought this legal action? (both stopped at random while on the way to attend a lawful & peaceful protest - one was a peace protester, the other was a journalist attending the protest to film it)

Do you think that Section 44 should be changed, so that instead of the police having the power to stop & search people at random without the need for any reasonable suspicion at all, they should instead have the power to "just shoot" random people without the need for any reasonable suspicion at all?

Perhaps this person who was stopped & searched under s.44 for that dastardly act of taking a photo of a Fish & Chip shop in Chatham High Street should simply have been "just shot"?

Perhaps all those other photographers, random innocent members of the public, and tourists, who have been stopped & searched under s.44, should simply have been "just shot"?

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

Ruling

Press Release

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I would still like to know just how many terrorists have been caught by stop and search?

Originally Posted by ECHR ruling

84. In this connection the Court is struck by the statistical and other evidence showing the extent to which resort is had by police officers to the powers of stop and search under section 44 of the Act. The Ministry of Justice recorded a total of 33,177 searches in 2004/5, 44,545 in 2005/6, 37,000 in 2006/7 and 117,278 in 2007/8 (see paragraphs 44-46 above). In his Report into the operation of the Act in 2007, Lord Carlile noted that while arrests for other crimes had followed searches under section 44, none of the many thousands of searches had ever related to a terrorism offence; in his 2008 Report Lord Carlile noted that examples of poor and unnecessary use of section 44 abounded, there being evidence of cases where the person stopped was so obviously far from any known terrorism profile that, realistically, there was not the slightest possibility of him/her being a terrorist, and no other feature to justify the stop.

85. In the Court's view, there is a clear risk of arbitrariness in the grant of such a broad discretion to the police officer. While the present cases do not concern black applicants or those of Asian origin, the risks of the discriminatory use of the powers against such persons is a very real consideration, as the judgments of Lord Hope, Lord Scott and Lord Brown recognised. The available statistics show that black and Asian persons are disproportionately affected by the powers, although the Independent Reviewer has also noted, in his most recent report, that there has also been a practice of stopping and searching white people purely to produce greater racial balance in the statistics (see paragraphs 43-44 above). There is, furthermore, a risk that such a widely framed power could be misused against demonstrators and protestors in breach of Article 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.

Originally Posted by martyh

have the court said the law is illegal or the way it's being used ?

Originally Posted by ECHR ruling

87. In conclusion, the Court considers that the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act are neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. They are not, therefore, “in accordance with the law� and it follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

so what that means is that s.44 stop and searches are no longer allowed even in times of high alert ,so basically the met have shot themselves in the foot by abusing a power that could have helped them and saved lives


oh and thanks for the clarification Matt D

[rogerdraig]

the ruling doesnt mean stop and search will have to stop it just means that they need to put in more measures to protect rights see

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...in=hudoc-pr-en

Quote
Whether the interference was “in accordance with the law� In the Court's view, the wide discretion conferred on the police under the 2000 Act, both in terms of the authorisation of the power to stop and search and its application in practice, had not been curbed by adequate legal safeguards so as to offer the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference.


unquote


so if they put in better safe guards then it could still be used dont see a huge problem with the judgement myself

Originally Posted by rogermevans

the ruling doesnt mean stop and search will have to stop it just means that they need to put in more measures to protect rights see

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...in=hudoc-pr-en

Quote
Whether the interference was “in accordance with the law� In the Court's view, the wide discretion conferred on the police under the 2000 Act, both in terms of the authorisation of the power to stop and search and its application in practice, had not been curbed by adequate legal safeguards so as to offer the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference.


unquote


so if they put in better safe guards then it could still be used dont see a huge problem with the judgement myself

so it was ill thought out legislation in the first place ?

So the number of terrorists caught under a law aimed at finding and deterring terrorists remains at zero and no one in our government has twigged this fact.It takes an external court set up by this country to point this fact out and still this government fails to twig the fact that this law is failing to achieve it's objectives...

Sounds like a script for Yes Minister to me....another BBC gem.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So the number of terrorists caught under a law aimed at finding and deterring terrorists remains at zero and no one in our government has twigged this fact.It takes an external court set up by this country to point this fact out and still this government fails to twig the fact that this law is failing to achieve it's objectives...

Sounds like a script for Yes Minister to me....another BBC gem.

you just gave me a mental image of Sir Humphrey Appleby trying to justify it

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by martyh

so it was ill thought out legislation in the first place ?

just as they noticed when they used similar powers to arrest a MP

give them an inch and they take a mile comes to mind lol

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

so what that means is that s.44 stop and searches are no longer allowed even in times of high alert ,so basically the met have shot themselves in the foot by abusing a power that could have helped them and saved lives


oh and thanks for the clarification Matt D

I don't think so. The government is planning to appeal to the 'grand chamber' and during the appeal process the ruling is ineffective, and stop and search powers remain available.

Found a bit in that great source of information. The British journal of Photography

He adds: 'I am disappointed with the [European Court of Human Rights] ruling in this case as we won all other challenges in the UK courts, including at the House of Lords. We are considering the judgment and will seek to appeal.'

Later on Tuesday, the Home Office amended Hanson's statement adding that 'pending the outcome of this appeal, the police will continue to have these powers available to them.'

Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police has confirmed to BJP that it had not issued any new instructions to its officers, according to a spokeswoman.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has also confirmed in a generic statement released to the media that the powers will continue to be used. 'As a result of the government decision to seek to appeal the ruling and following legal advice, the use Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 remains in force in accordance with authorisations currently in place nationally,' says the ACPO's lead on stop and search Chief Constable Craig Mackey.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by martyh

so it was ill thought out legislation in the first place ?

Pretty much. For a government with so many lawyers in it some of their legislation has been very shoddily thought out.

Unless of course it was all a ploy to make money out of crap legislation...

The whole Section 44 legislation seemed pretty unnecessary to me, most cops who think someone needs searched will find a reason (within the law of course) to search that person and get a note of their details.

Originally Posted by Derek S

Pretty much. For a government with so many lawyers in it some of their legislation has been very shoddily thought out.

Unless of course it was all a ploy to make money out of crap legislation...

The whole Section 44 legislation seemed pretty unnecessary to me, most cops who think someone needs searched will find a reason (within the law of course) to search that person and get a note of their details.

thats what i thought PACE was for

[Tezcatlipoca]

"Stop and search photographer held again under terror laws"

Originally Posted by Paul Lewis @ The Grauniad

A photographer who prompted a debate over police powers last year when he was apprehended for taking photographs of a London church was subjected today to an almost identical stop and search under anti-terrorist powers while trying to photograph the capital's skyline.

Grant Smith, a renowned architectural photographer, was taking photographs at One Aldermanbury Square, near London Wall, when he was stopped by officers from City of London police.

He said they prevented him from using his camera to film the stop and search, and held his arms behind his back as they searched through his possessions.

It is the second time in six months that Smith has been stopped by City police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows officers to stop and search anyone without need for suspicion in designated areas. In December, the police stopped him from photographing the spire of Sir Christopher Wren's Christ Church. His treatment prompted a public debate over anti-terrorist powers, and led to several senior officers appearing to rein in the inappropriate use of the laws.

Today, in a repetition of the earlier stop and search, Smith said he was first approached by a security guard asserting he could not photograph a building. When he asserted his lawful right to continue taking images, police were called.

He said two uniformed officers detained him, one by grabbing his arms behind his back, and refused requests to record the stop and search on his camera. He added that they even refused to let him use a pen and paper to note down their details.

(snip)

Great

[the_neurotic_cat]

It doesn't surprise me that our laws are deemed illegal by the EU ... our laws are probably so badly written by the pillocks in parliament that a chimp with crayons would probably do a better job at formulating practical legislation.

[Tezcatlipoca]

More on the City of London Police & s.44...

City Police still using Terror Act to bother photographers

The City Of London Police War On Photography


Idiots


I hope that the coalition does something about s.44 when it looks at New Labour's myriad of terrorism legislation.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Matt D

More on the City of London Police & s.44...

City Police still using Terror Act to bother photographers

The City Of London Police War On Photography


Idiots


I hope that the coalition does something about s.44 when it looks at New Labour's myriad of terrorism legislation.

Why??? Little old men at Labour conferences, blokes protesting outside Westminster with placards and Japanese tourists taking pics of Big Ben and the London Eye are obvious security risks....