Anti Terror Stop and Search Powers dropped

#2
Score one for commen sense.
 
#3
Section 44 was too often used by the plod as a means of getting back at members of the public who did not 'respect their authoritah'
 
#4
Section 44 was too often used by the plod as a means of getting back at members of the public who did not 'respect their authoritah'
Like the stupid copper at the Gurkha Demo who came onto us like the Gestapo, thick tw@t
 
#6
It appears from the news reports that the Home Secretary has ordered the 'abandonment' of section 44. Unfortunately, that is an instruction she has no authority to give since to do so would, In the words of Lord Templeman in M v Home Office [1993] 3 All ER 527 "..establish the proposition that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War.". It will be for Parliament to expressly or impliedly repeal section 44 which, unless and until that happens, the Police are under a duty to apply which they will no doubt continue to do so as the provision was intended to be used - as a means of gathering low-level intelligence in addition to its deterrent effect.

Reasonable suspicion will now replace the absence of reasonable suspicion upon which almost nothing will turn since it is an extremely low threshold. Reasonable suspicion is not an objective test of reasonableness. It is a subjective test. In other words, the question is not: "Would a reasonable person regard the grounds relied upon as reasonable"? Rather, it is "Did that particular officer believe that the grounds relied upon were reasonable in all the circumstances". The requirement of 'reasonable suspicion' is simply the imposition of an objective standard which may be subjectively satisfied. In other words, the loss of section 44 will not make a great deal of practical difference.
 
#7
It appears from the news reports that the Home Secretary has ordered the 'abandonment' of section 44. Unfortunately, that is an instruction she has no authority to give since to do so would, In the words of Lord Templeman in M v Home Office [1993] 3 All ER 527 "..establish the proposition that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War.". It will be for Parliament to expressly or impliedly repeal section 44 which, unless and until that happens, the Police are under a duty to apply which they will no doubt continue to do so as the provision was intended to be used - as a means of gathering low-level intelligence in addition to its deterrent effect.

Reasonable suspicion will now replace the absence of reasonable suspicion upon which almost nothing will turn since it is an extremely low threshold. Reasonable suspicion is not an objective test of reasonableness. It is a subjective test. In other words, the question is not: "Would a reasonable person regard the grounds relied upon as reasonable"? Rather, it is "Did that particular officer believe that the grounds relied upon were reasonable in all the circumstances". The requirement of 'reasonable suspicion' is simply the imposition of an objective standard which may be subjectively satisfied. In other words, the loss of section 44 will not make a great deal of practical difference.
I beg to differ me ole mucker. S44 powers are authorised for a set period in a set locality (normally a force area) by the Home sec. All she has to do is stop authorising its use. It would be a grave mistake in my view. It is used to make the intelligence gathering environment as unpermissive as possible for terrorists (if I go on a dummy run on the tube will the BTP be there doing random stops) and IMHO what upsets the public is not so much opening their bag as the rigmarole of giving details that are the checked for the stop slip we have to issue.
 
#8
what upsets the public is not so much opening their bag as the rigmarole of giving details that are the checked for the stop slip we have to issue.
What upsets the public is cops strutting about using S44 as a catchall excuse for ****ing people about whenever they feel like it.
 
#9
What upsets the public is cops strutting about using S44 as a catchall excuse for ****ing people about whenever they feel like it.
On a personal level I couldn't give a stuff if I am allowed to search people or not ... it would make no difference to my pay packet what so ever ........ it would make the public less safe but hey.... they pay the salary bills.
 
#10
It appears from the news reports that the Home Secretary has ordered the 'abandonment' of section 44. Unfortunately, that is an instruction she has no authority to give since to do so would, In the words of Lord Templeman in M v Home Office [1993] 3 All ER 527 "..establish the proposition that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War.". It will be for Parliament to expressly or impliedly repeal section 44 which, unless and until that happens, the Police are under a duty to apply which they will no doubt continue to do so as the provision was intended to be used - as a means of gathering low-level intelligence in addition to its deterrent effect.

Reasonable suspicion will now replace the absence of reasonable suspicion upon which almost nothing will turn since it is an extremely low threshold. Reasonable suspicion is not an objective test of reasonableness. It is a subjective test. In other words, the question is not: "Would a reasonable person regard the grounds relied upon as reasonable"? Rather, it is "Did that particular officer believe that the grounds relied upon were reasonable in all the circumstances". The requirement of 'reasonable suspicion' is simply the imposition of an objective standard which may be subjectively satisfied. In other words, the loss of section 44 will not make a great deal of practical difference.
It may not make a great deal of practical difference. However as Trotsky points out the problem is not Section 44 per se. It is the perception of the public as they provide all those details for the "stop" slip. Not even in Northern Ireland did "stop and search" routine procedures reach this level of control. For thirty years ordinary people of all groups and ages automatically accepted searches of their persons and belongings with little dissention. It became so commonplace that people from NI when on visits to other countries would automatically present their bags to bemused shop staff for inspection.
There are ample powers without Section 44, and as Trotsky says, it can be introduced where felt necessary. And yes the Home Secretary can make an order - back to the law books (Iolis!)
 
#11
I beg to differ me ole mucker. S44 powers are authorised for a set period in a set locality (normally a force area) by the Home sec. All she has to do is stop authorising its use. It would be a grave mistake in my view. It is used to make the intelligence gathering environment as unpermissive as possible for terrorists (if I go on a dummy run on the tube will the BTP be there doing random stops) and IMHO what upsets the public is not so much opening their bag as the rigmarole of giving details that are the checked for the stop slip we have to issue.
What actually annoys me is not the Stop and Search. It is the plastic plod and a few misinformed MPS using Sect 44 (and 43) for Stop and Account, which the section(s) does not provide for.
 
#12
Mate, there is no power for stop and account, beyond the common law understanding that we can talk to whom we want and there is a civil duty to assist police, so don't understand why anyone would use S44 unless they were going to search you.
 
#13
I think that dropping this law is completely stupid. How are the police going to detect terror suspects or people drug trafficing? Do they have to wait on a warrent and by that time the person has escaped or sold the drugs?
 
#14
I think that dropping this law is completely stupid. How are the police going to detect terror suspects or people drug trafficing? Do they have to wait on a warrent and by that time the person has escaped or sold the drugs?
You are clearly retarded, S44 is not the sole source of Int. It was however a way to irritate and annoy the general public whilst generating adverse publicity for the Police. There are better ways to get information.
 
#15
I think that dropping this law is completely stupid. How are the police going to detect terror suspects or people drug trafficing? Do they have to wait on a warrent and by that time the person has escaped or sold the drugs?
They should have reasonable suspicion before searching Terror Suspects, nothing stopping that, and as for drug trafficing there are powers to stop and search them too, but they dont need to use Section44 to carry out those stops. Provision has always been available for both these circumstances.
 
#16
Sorry for my ignorance not having any knowledge of s44, what does it cover and how is it implemented?
 
#17
Section 44 could be declared for a particular timescale, location event or activity. Most notably arms fairs and the G20 meetings IIRC. However it has been badly abused and used for purposes for which it was not intended. I know its wiki but here are some examples:
Terrorism Act 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In September 2003 two people - Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton - intending to protest against the Defence Systems Equipment International (DSEI) show in London's Docklands, were stopped and searched under the Act. There followed an outcry[who?] that this was a misuse of power. The pressure group Liberty took the case to High Court where the Judge ruled in favour of the police.[23][31] Appeals to the Court of Appeal, and, in March 2006, to the House of Lords, failed.
Walter Wolfgang was removed from the 2005 Labour Party conference for heckling Jack Straw. He was later stopped by police under the Terrorism Act on attempting to re-enter the conference.
Over 1000 anti-war protesters, were stopped and required to empty their pockets, on their way to RAF Fairford (used by American B-52 bombers during the Iraq conflict).[21]
During the 2005 G8 protests in Auchterarder, Scotland, a cricketer on his way to a match was stopped at King's Cross station in London under Section 44 powers and questioned over his possession of a cricket bat.[21]
In October 2008 police stopped a 15-year-old schoolboy in south London who was taking photographs of Wimbledon railway station for his school geography project. He was questioned under suspicion of being a terrorist. His parents raised concerns that his personal data could be held on a police database for up to six years.[32]
Member of Parliament Andrew Pelling was questioned after photographing roadworks near a railway station[33]
In April 2009 a man in Enfield was questioned under Section 44 for photographing a police car that he considered was being driven inappropriately along a public footpath.[34]
Trainspotters have frequently been subjected to stop and search; in August 2009 a rail enthusiast was pursued by Dyfed-Powys Police for photographing a locomotive at a Murco oil refinery in Milford Haven.[35] Between 2000 and 2009, police used powers under the Act to stop 62,584 people at railway stations.[36]
In November 2009, BBC photographer Jeff Overs was searched and questioned by police outside the Tate Modern art gallery
 
#18
Thanks for that bob, a little hitlers charter then? I'm guessing the current government are intending to repeal it then?
 
#19
I guess they will repeal Section 44, it was being misused, and the powers exist in other sections of the law where the criteria are slightly clearer for their use, and prevent misuse.
 
#20
Or more concisely (Yup I know it looks boring, but it's worth reading!):

43 Search of persons

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.
(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.
Power to stop and search

44 Authorisations

(1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given—
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.
(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.

45 Exercise of power

(1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)—
(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
(b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
(3) A constable exercising the power conferred by an authorisation may not require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an outer coat, a jacket or gloves.
(4) Where a constable proposes to search a person or vehicle by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or near the place where the person or vehicle is stopped.
(5) Where—
(a) a vehicle or pedestrian is stopped by virtue of section 44(1) or (2), and
(b) the driver of the vehicle or the pedestrian applies for a written statement that the vehicle was stopped, or that he was stopped, by virtue of section 44(1) or (2),
the written statement shall be provided.
(6) An application under subsection (5) must be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the vehicle or pedestrian was stopped.
46 Duration of authorisation

(1) An authorisation under section 44 has effect, subject to subsections (2) to (7), during the period—
(a) beginning at the time when the authorisation is given, and
(b) ending with a date or at a time specified in the authorisation.
(2) The date or time specified under subsection (1)(b) must not occur after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the authorisation is given.
(3) The person who gives an authorisation shall inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(4) If an authorisation is not confirmed by the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when it is given—
(a) it shall cease to have effect at the end of that period, but
(b) its ceasing to have effect shall not affect the lawfulness of anything done in reliance on it before the end of that period.
(5) Where the Secretary of State confirms an authorisation he may substitute an earlier date or time for the date or time specified under subsection (1)(b).
(6) The Secretary of State may cancel an authorisation with effect from a specified time.
(7) An authorisation may be renewed in writing by the person who gave it or by a person who could have given it; and subsections (1) to (6) shall apply as if a new authorisation were given on each occasion on which the authorisation is renewed.


Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)

For Forces interest (and [mis]used in the recent Romford incident):

58 Collection of information

(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2) In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, to a fine or to both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
(5) A court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may order the forfeiture of any document or record containing information of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
(6) Before making an order under subsection (5) a court must give an opportunity to be heard to any person, other than the convicted person, who claims to be the owner of or otherwise interested in anything which can be forfeited under that subsection.
(7) An order under subsection (5) shall not come into force until there is no further possibility of it being varied, or set aside, on appeal (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time).


Amended by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008


76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc

(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc

(1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction—
(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).
(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.
(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.
(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28)
 

Latest Threads

Top