and like all Euro rulings they'll find a way round it, look at the DNA samples fiasco...
Section 44 Terrorism Act Stop and search powers ruled illegal by European court
- Thread starter Squatticus
- Start date
and like all Euro rulings they'll find a way round it, look at the DNA samples fiasco...
Surprise surprise an appeal is being made as Section 44 is such an important tool in the fight against terrorism http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872574
Quote from article:
"Photojournalist and investigative reporter Marc Vallée isn't surprised 'that the government will seek to appeal this ruling. Meanwhile photographers across the UK will face unnecessary stop and searches under Section 44,' he tells BJP. 'The Home Office statement today states that Section 44 is an important tool in the fight against terrorism – I would like to see the evidence that stopping photographers on the streets of Britain has disrupted a terrorist attack?'"
(e2a: Also the Met confirmed they've issued no instructions to suspend it's use)
Quote from article:
"Photojournalist and investigative reporter Marc Vallée isn't surprised 'that the government will seek to appeal this ruling. Meanwhile photographers across the UK will face unnecessary stop and searches under Section 44,' he tells BJP. 'The Home Office statement today states that Section 44 is an important tool in the fight against terrorism – I would like to see the evidence that stopping photographers on the streets of Britain has disrupted a terrorist attack?'"
(e2a: Also the Met confirmed they've issued no instructions to suspend it's use)
No real surprises there then ...
I've said from the time they were introduced that the blanket authorisation of whole areas (e.g. the whole of the Greater London area) for back-to-back period of the maximum 28 days allowed was excessive and would not stand proper scrutiny and that appears to be what the ECHR have ruled too.
(Beware any assumption that the powers will have to be withdrawn altogether though - used properly (i.e. in specific locations, for restricted periods of time, where specific threats can be demonstrated) I can see no reason why the ECHR would rule them unlawful - it is more how the powers have been used rather than the power per se which seems to have been ruled excessive (though a detailed reading of the judgment or more detailed report would be needed to be sure)).
No, they won't.
This power does not require any individual suspicion and hence what consitutes grounds for suspicion is entirely irrelevant.
Er ... yes ... which is what the ECHR appear to have ruled has been exceeded ...
The right to privacy is a "qualified" right. The qualifier is:
Article 8(2) European Convention on Human Rights said:
The government argument would be that their power in s.44, and the way it was used, was "necessary" in the interests of national security, public safety, etc (probably several of them). The ECHR would appear to have disagreed. If that is the case, and dependant on the detail of the judgment, they will either have to change how the s.44 power is used or change the s.44 power itself (or both). (I suspect just how it is used). There is no further "wriggle room".
Very little, I suspect.
If you're wanting some sort of "compo" then I can't see you getting any.
(The civil courts are reluctant as a matter of public policy to allow actions for something which was lawful at the time. And even if you were successful it would be nothing like the £30k or whatever in this case, which would be mostly, if not entirely, costs).
Your comment corrected.
(ETA: Whilst in some cases punitive damages against the State may be justified, I personally believe that they should usually be restricted in such cases to specific damages).
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Apparently partly on the basis that the wording of s44 itself states that it may be used when 'expedient', not 'necessary' (IIRC there was parliamentary debate over the specific use of 'expedient' at the time the Terrorism Bill was being debated).
Which is why the Tory cunts should not be given the time of day ...
The ECHR, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the primacy of the European Court of Human Rights are basically very good things. It will be a sad day if one of the best achievements of the Labour government are overthrown.
Yeah, seen the link to the ruling now. Looks like that will have to be changed ... but I don't see anything there which will mean that a properly constrained power of search without individual suspicion in exceptional circumstances will not be legally still possible. (For instance, should, God forbid, we have another 7 July scenario, random searches of everyone entering or in the tube system could be justified for a while, at least until the facts of what happened became know (allowing more individual suspicion-based searching)).
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Quite.
As an emergency measure limited to a specific time and place and in reaction to or anticipation of specific events or intelligence it might not be unreasonable - which was how s44 was presented to Parliament at the time it was being passed into law.
A decade-long continuous rolling authorisation across 600 square miles of Greater London being used nearly 120,000 times a year is an entirely different matter, though.
that's YOUR career as a copper over!!
Please keep up ... I don't have a career as a copper - I left seven years ago.
Despite what other posters say, I am anything but a standard right-wing, hang 'em, flog 'em stereotype (and I have never been). I do, however, find it somewhat irksome that in our simplistic world you can either be (a) in favour of "law'n'order" (and hence slightly to the right of Attila the Hun) or (b) anywhere to the left of centre (and hence signatory to the Criminal's Charter).
It is possible to believe in law and order, and the protection of the weak by the law and the forces of the State and not be a capitalist ...
ECHR said:
Translation:
"Sure you can say you're appealing to save face, but in April we'll tell you to fuck off because it's not a 'serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention'. Capisce?"
This is going to piss Valée off so much
(It's not an SWP action, so he's forced to dismiss it.)Oh, yes!
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Good old Euro convention, with all its get-out clauses and qualifications. Is Britiain still in a "state of emergency", BTW?
Another thing about it (and its baby brother, the Human Rights Act) is that neither Strasbourg, or British courts, have the power to quash unlawful Acts. Having the police ignore a court judgment just brings the whole concept of the rule of law into disrepute.
I see "public morals" is back again!
The government might have no wiggle-room within the broad criteria of the ECHR, but that's the whole point. There's no clear ban on specific types of searches, and much lattitude to persuade the ECHR to allow evidence-free search and seizure. A good old common law ban on "unreasonable search and seizure", with clear requirements for individual suspicion and belief, is worth far more. The ECHR is in the grand old tradition of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, that pious doccument passed just in time for the Terror.
Actually I suggested they raid the officers' piggy banks.
If it's costing taxpayers' money, it's incentive for the public to come out against unreasonable search and seizure.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Most oppressive laws begin as "emergency measures". The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 1973, to list just one of many examples.
The "emergency" justification rests on the assumption that authoritarianism makes our lives safer. I don't believe it does. How many would-be murderers and bombers have been bagged by these search powers? Enough to somehow balance out the threat from the state?
Canada passed a law allowing the police to hold terrorists for three days of "preventative detention" back in the post 9/11 panic. It was used once, and repealed in 2007. We should follow their example.
Lord Carlile:
We can but dream.
Predictably, Alan Johnson says that the UK will appeal to the Grand Chamber, some junior bag-carrier says:
.... and someone from the Met says the same.
Has anyone ever been found guilty of a terrorism-related offence following an inquiry which has a section 44 search as its sole origin?
We can but dream.
Predictably, Alan Johnson says that the UK will appeal to the Grand Chamber, some junior bag-carrier says:
.... and someone from the Met says the same.
Has anyone ever been found guilty of a terrorism-related offence following an inquiry which has a section 44 search as its sole origin?
The ECHR accepted that none had been at the time of the hearing last May.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
"On the other hand, we have to be safe against terrorism. There is therefore a very difficult balancing exercise to be done and I'm sure Section 44 will come under intelligent scrutiny in the coming months."
Lord Carlile, Oxymoron (or "Lib Dem", as he'd prefer).
Under the ECHR, he's correct, there is a "balancing act" between competing, abstract "rights". Under a proper Bill of Rights, there's no "balance", simply a rule of due process to be enforced.
The Lib Dems accept without question that there's a "delicate balance" between liberty and security. I think that liberty is security. You can't have one without the other. I'd direct the alleged-liberal Lord Carlile to Benjamin Franklin's words on the matter. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, will loose both, and deserve neither."
Bet ol' Frank hadn't thought about it properly, either.
Lord Carlile, Oxymoron (or "Lib Dem", as he'd prefer).
Under the ECHR, he's correct, there is a "balancing act" between competing, abstract "rights". Under a proper Bill of Rights, there's no "balance", simply a rule of due process to be enforced.
The Lib Dems accept without question that there's a "delicate balance" between liberty and security. I think that liberty is security. You can't have one without the other. I'd direct the alleged-liberal Lord Carlile to Benjamin Franklin's words on the matter. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, will loose both, and deserve neither."
Bet ol' Frank hadn't thought about it properly, either.
Compact Jam
I heard that!!
I am gratified by the move but I am still profoundly disturbed by the proposed stop and tickle powers being sought by many forces.
newharper
Manxome Tove
Obviously not rigorous enough.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
I''d like to see how as we are signed up to the European constitution now like it or not....
Yes. The incident publicised recently where someone was seen by police surreptitiously taking photographs on a mobile phone at a station (Liverpool Street I think).
But catching people in the act is not the only (or, I would suggest, even the principle) purpose of the tactic (as it is obvious that that is like looking for a needle in a haystack) - it is primarily intended as a deterrent tactic, making life more difficult for anyone intent on an attack.
Nor have you, with your tiresome refrain about how wonderful the US is ...
In the same way that the entire country argues that more "bobbies on the beat" deters ordinary crime. Any overt activity, especially if (as here) it may apply to you regardless of whether you do anything specific to attract attention, puts you on the back foot if you are up to no good. It may precipitate some action which in effect provides some specific grounds to suspect.
(There are dozens of examples of people with weapons doing a U-turn when seeing a metal detector arch at a station, for instance, effectively giving themselves up).
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I don't think those 11 year old twins stopped and searched at an environmental demo will be planning any terrorist attacks in the near future.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Is this the case you mean? From the BBC report: "Five men were arrested after [the alleged terrorist] was caught filming and acting suspiciously at Liverpool Street station, police said." It sounds like the police responded to suspicious behaviour, and his actions would've qualified as reasonable suspicion, if they'd needed it. (No one's been convicted on terrorism charges, BTW, only fraud.)
Have there been any cases of terrorists who were caught by chance in a random search, with no suspicious behaviour? (I wouldn't be surprised if there are, given the law of averages.)
And the tens of thousands of innocent people searched without cause.
If a terrorist is intent on an attack, all they have to do is get on during rush hour in the most obscure suburban station they can find, and atomise themselves on a packed rush-hour train. If they want to take photos in central London station, wouldn't there be more chance of the police finding them if officers could devote their time to looking for suspicious behaviour, without the distraction of random searches?
Holy Straw Men, Batman!Nor have you, with your tiresome refrain about how wonderful the US is ...
winjer
holocene death beat
He's not, nor to my knowledge ever has been SWP (Is such an accusation actionable?This is going to piss Valée off so much
).Nor is he any longer with the other lot.
Similar threads
