Stop and search, and the Human Rights Act

pick up over and look, and the pitying Rights proceedPART AThe office of snag and assay is a general term employ to describe the berths of practice of law or occasionally the officials to assay the members of humans in a various context without a warrant.1 Such parts ar governed primarily at a sw digest place ramify 1 of the legal philosophy and roughshod Evidence map 1984 ( rationalitys). 2 Besides pace 1984, there atomic number 18 other statute law which governs the office of renounce and see. For example, s23 of the Misexercising of Drugs bring 19713, s60 of the vile legal expert and Public entrap exemplify 1994 (CJPOA)4 and s47A of the terrorist act practice 2000 ( t answerionfulness)5. The condition of obstruction and see infra tactfulness were previously governed downstairs s44, but were ruled il court- come outed by the European hook of human beings Rights, stating that the strength were too widely pinched and open to ab routine.6 S 44 were than formally replaced with s47A by the Terrorism modus operandi 2000 (Remedial) effectuate 20117 on the 18 blemish 2011, by to a greater extent limited measures in England, Wales and Scotland. totally legislations which governs law of nature ability of give notice and await similarly aim to stop and deter crimes, however, there is still round difference in the regulations of such(prenominal) powers, between Part 1 of the gait 1984 and s47A of the TACT 2000. Statistic showed that approximately 1.1 one thousand million stops and huntes be recorded downstairs Section 1 of the PACE 1984, in the family of 2011/2012. 8 No facees were nominate by the legal philosophy in 2011/12 or 2012/13 in capital Britain low s47A of TACT.9 A low detection rate alone does not necessarily spelunk the use of stop and search powers. Proponents of the power, especially downstairs terrorism legislation, postulate that its use disrupts and deters criminal activity rather than si mply detecting it.10The beginning(a) and utmost obvious difference in the powers of stop and search in relation to both PACE 1984 and TACT 2000 ar that both legislation watch different aim of search. Part 1 of the PACE 1984 set asides power to stop and search for a range of items including stolen property, offensive weapons, prohibited articles below s1(7) PACE, controlled drugs or evidence that a psyche is a terrorist.11 Whereas, powers under TACT 2000 were to search for evidence of terrorism. An military officer exercising the stop and search powers freshthorn only do so for the purpose of searching for evidence that the soul concerned is a terrorist or that the vehicle concerned is organism use for the purposes of terrorism, as opposed to the purpose under theatrical role 45(1)12 of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism. 13. The meaning of terrorists are be under piece 40(1) (b) of the 2000 knead. In addition, the regulat ion of the power of stop and search are different in terms of the powers where exercisable. Under Part 1 of the PACE, the power of stop and search whitethorn be bore by constable at any time, but only in public places, and non-dwelling places to which the public admit ready access.14 This includes public transport, museums, sports ground, cinemas, pubs, restaurants, night club, banks and shops. Whilst power of stop and search under S47A only allows a constable with identical to search at a circumstantial area for a defined period 15with sanction by an officer of ACPO rank who reasonably shadys that an act of terrorism testament take place.16Next, the difference of regulations of both PACE and TACT in the power of stop and search by the patrol are the matter of ascendence. Under Part1 of the PACE, the constable are allow to conduct searches as long as they are having the sightly ground of scruple that germane(predicate) offences lead be found. 17 There are no mention of needing authority by officer of a higher ranking before conducting stop and search unlike S47A of TACT. Under this section, authorisation by a elder police officer are essential before stop and search could be conduct by any constable in uniform. 18Authorisation will only be given if an officer reasonably suspect that an act of terrorism will take place19 and consider that the authorisation is crucial to counteract such an act and that the areas or places stipulate in the authorisation are no greater than is prerequisite and the duration20 of the authorisation is no longer than is infallible to prevent such an act. The requirement for an authorisation are given in the Code of workout21 where an authorisation under section 47A may only be made by an officer of ACPO or ACPOS rank. The authorisation would include elaborate of how the turn of the powers is necessary to prevent the act of terrorism.22In most statutory provisions including PACE which grants police the power to stop and search, there is a requirement that the police must have a rational ground of mistrust that the person is in possession of an item of a stipulate kind. 23 Although there was no definition of likely ground of suspicion position down in the legislation, Code of Practice A, under PACE had provided some sort of guideline as to what constitute reasonable suspicion. Para 2.2 explained that reasonable grounds for suspicion will depend on the nature in each case. 24 There must be some objective bum for that suspicion based on facts, discipline and/or intelligence that are relevant to the likelihood of finding an article of a certain kind.25 comely suspicion can never be supported on the initiation of personal factors. Officers must rely on intelligence or information about or some specific behaviour by the person concerned.26 For example the nature of the articles suspected of being carried, the time and place where the person or vehicle is or the behaviour of the person suspe cted. The case of Howarth v Commissioner of practice of law for the Metropolis (2011)27 explained that reasonable cause for suspicion is a lower standard that which would be required to establish a prima facie case.28 It allows police officer to take into account matter that would not be admittible as evidence. In comparison, the power conferred under S47A TACT 2000 can be exercised without reasonable suspicion. An authorisation by a senior police officer allows searches by any constable in uniform in specified areas or places without reasonable suspicion to find evidence related to terrorism. The authorisation would provide explanation which allows stopping and searching of singulars and/or vehicles without suspicion is necessary to prevent the suspected act of terrorism.29To conclude, although both PACE and TACT have different regulations in terms of the power of stop and search, however what stay the same is that the underlying principles of stop and search are intended to i nstigate its use in a fair and effective manner. An officer may not search a person where there is no legal basis to do so, even with an individuals consent. confront and search must be done in a courteous and honorific manner and the length of detainment must be kept to a nominal even when the officer is lawfully entitled to search a person of vehicle. 30PART BThe homo Rights Act 1998 (HRA) came into force in the unite Kingdom in October 2000. 31This legislation gives effect in the UK to certain wakeless rights and libertys contained in the European practice on homophile Rights (ECHR). Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, public bodies such as the court, police, local anaesthetic council and all other bodies carrying out the public functions must comply with the formula rights. This means, individuals can now take human rights cases in domestic courts and they no longer have to go to Strasbourg to entreat their case in the European Court of Human Rights.32 With the HRA 1998 coming into force, the power of stop and search had made some impact on the regulation and use of the power of stop and search in some counseling.In relation to the use of power of stop and search, public bodies are required to exercise such power in compliance to the convention rights. The legal framework for protecting the perfect human rights contained in the HRA 1998 allows the public to rely on the articles when they are being stopped and searched. When powers of stop and searched are exercise, the public bodies are required to exercise it in such a way that it is necessary and proportionate. 33 phrase 5, 8 and 14 of the HRA 1998 would be more relevant in the matter of stop and search. word 5 ensures the right to liberty and security of person. 34The right in hold 5 is limited, which means that there are certain circumstances or situation where deprivation of liberty is lawful.35 expression 8 protects people from peremptory interference in their snobbish an d family right. 36 The act of being subject to a search, which may take place in public, and may include a search of a person, their clothing or personal belongings will interfere with article 8 rights. Article 8 is a answer right, and Article 8(2) provides exceptions enabling interference with the right, for example in the interests of national security, or the prevention of crime.37 Any interference with a persons Article 8 rights will need to come within one of the exceptions allowed under Article 8(2), and be in accordance with the law, necessary and proportionate. In addition, Article 1438 allows people to enjoy the Convention rights without any discrimination. In another words, individual must not be stopped or searched purely because of their break away or religion. The power of stop and search would only be harmonious with human rights if they are used legitimately and proportionately.39 Evidence shows that stop and search powers that do not require reasonable suspicion, as well as those under PACE, may be used in a way that is discriminatory because certain ethnic communities are more likely to get wind stop and search than others. However, the coloured and minority ethnic groups, particularly the black people, have for many years been disproportionately at the receiving end of police stop and search. Joel Miller in his article Stop and hunt club in England, A Reformed tactic or Business As prevalent? suggested that the treatment towards the black and the minority had always been discriminatory. This is evident in surveys such as the Smith and Gray 1985, Willis 1983, Young 1994, and others. 40The political science statistics particularly from the Ministry of rightness 2009 had suggest that the black people in England and Wales in the year of 2007/2008 are more likely to be searched eight times more than white people and Asian people more than twice, for searches which requires reasonable ground of suspicion.41The power of stop and search und er Terrorism Act 2000 were previously governed under s44, but were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom42. After the incident of 911, the place monument and senior police officers established the practice of making authorisations continually under section 44 to cover the whole of metropolitan London.43 The police justified their act by claiming that there was now a talk threat of terrorism in London and it was likely to manifest in any large-scale public gathering, and that it would be impractical to make narrower. In this case, Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton were attending a demonstration in London in the year of 2003. Both of them were stopped and searched by the police under S44 Terrorism Act 2000. They subsequently brought a legal re prospect regarding the power of stop and search on the basis that there was no evidence of terrorism showed by the protestor on that day. They claimed that the stop and search wa s an interference with their rights to liberty, respect for privacy, and the right to freedom of expression and assembly. 44In March 2006, the House of Lords heard Gillan and Quintons appeal against the refusal of the lower courts to allow their claim. Lord Bingham and his fellow Law Lords ruled that section 44 was itself congruous with Convention rights, there were sufficient safeguards against arbitrary use of the power, and that there was no evidence that the section 44 power had been exercised unlawfully. 45 Gillan and Quinton took their complaints further to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In January 2009, the Court ruled that the searches under section 44 had violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 46As a result of a legal challenge made by the European Court of Human Rights, and as a part of the UK political relations commitment to introduce safeguards against the mistreat o f powers under TACT, the Home Secretary conducted a re imbibe of these powers.47 One of the recommendations of the review was that stop and search powers under section 44 of TACT should be repealed and replaced with a much more targeted and proportionate power. 48 The Home Secretary therefore made a bettering order under section 10 49 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make agile changes to the legislation. This new power came into force on 18 March 2011.50 Section 47A of TACT allows the police to stop and search persons in order to prevent acts of terrorism, without reasonable suspicion of their involvement in terrorism. pursuites under this power may only be authorised in a specific area for a defined period where the police reasonably suspect an act of terrorism will take place.51Stop and search powers provided under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Firearms Act 1968 52 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 53all require a reasonable suspicio n that the person stopped is in possession of prohibited goods or has affiliated an offence.54 By contrast, stop and search powers provided under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public rig Act 1994 and section 47A do not require any grounds of reasonable suspicion. Although S47A can be express as an improvement of the previous law, however the power of stop and search without reasonable suspicion had always been an issue. Many are in the view that such power of stop and search without the need of reasonable suspicion is inherently contradictory with the Convention. 55The justification is that the lack of any requirement for reasonable suspicion renders selection for stop and search arbitrary and invites discrimination in the exercise of the power.56Rabinder Singh QC, Professor Aileen McColgan and the Human Rights Watch are in the view that the nature of stop and search without the need for reasonable suspicion is incompatible with right to respect for private and family l ife under Article 8 of HRA 1998.57 In their view, even with the best guidance to officers as to how to exercise the power, cannot be rendered compatible with Convention rights because of the irreducible arbitrariness of the selection of individuals to subject to the power.58 In Human Rights Watchs view, the only human rights compatible power to stop and search is one which requires reasonable suspicion. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) itself, however, does not count to share this view that a power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion is inherently incompatible with Article 8 and other Convention rights. 59In its submission, it recognises that there may be very exceptional circumstances in which it is necessary for there to be a power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion ,for instance to prevent a real and immediate act of terrorism or to search for perpetrators or weapons following a serious incident. 60 In terms of the protection under the powe r of stop and search, any individual who were searched unlawfully may seek a amends under the Human Rights Act 1998 for an unjustifiable breach of their rights to liberty, respect for private life or to be free from discrimination. 61All in all, the Human Rights Act 1998 had made some significant impact on regulations and use of the power to stop and search by the public bodies. It is safe to argue that the law in terms of the stop and search power had change significantly, particularly S47A TACT 2000, which minimize the abuse of power and act in compliance with the Convention rights. With the legislation coming into force, it does not only provide guidelines to the authorities, it also provides momentous protection to the public when the power to stop and search are exercise on them. In any circumstances which the public authorities abuse or misuse the power to stop and search, judicial review would be a mechanism to hold them into account. It was suggested that, when there is mi suse of power, judicial review offers the public a relatively quick, effective and chinchy means of securing their rights through scrutiny of the lawfulness of police action by a specialist judge. 62The bases on which it can be argued that the police have acted unlawfully were importantly expanded by the enactment of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.1 Stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000 (Justice) http//www.justice.org.uk/pages/stop-and-search-under-the-terrorism-act-2000.html accessed 17 November 20142 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 19843 Misuse of Drugs Act 19714 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 19945 Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT)6 Adam Wagner, Stop and search powers under review as European Court despise UK appeal ( UK Human Rights Blog, 1 July 2010) http//ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/07/01/stop-and-search-powers-under-review-as-european-court-reject-uk-appeal/ accessed 28 November 20147 Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 20118 Home Office, Statistics national statis tics Police powers and procedures England and Wales 2011/12https//www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-powers-and-procedures-in-england-and-wales-201112/police-powers-and-procedures-in-england-and-wales-2011-12stops-and-searches9 Statistics Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation Arrests, outcomes and stop and searches, Great Britain, 2012 to 2013 (Home Office, 12 September 2013) https//www.gov.uk/government/publications/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-2012-to-2013/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-and-subsequent-legislation-arrests-outcomes-and-stop-and-searches-great-britain-2012-to-20 accessed 20 November 201410 Pat Strickland, Stop and Search ( House of Commons Library , 23 January 2014) 11 Part 1 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, particularly s2, s7,s812 S45(1) Terrorism Act 200013Does the Order remove the incompatibility? (Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011 Stop and Sear ch without bonnie Suspicion Human Rights Joint Committee) http//www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/155/15506.htm accessed 27 November 201414 S4 , s5 PACE15Duration The maximum period for an authorisation is 14 days.16 Code of Practice under Terrorism Act 200017 s1(3) PACE18 Code of Practice under Terrorism Act 19 Kiron Reid, Stop and Search (24 September 2014)20 The maximum period for an authorisation is 14 days.21 Code Of Practice (England, Wales And Scotland) For The Authorisation And Exercise Of Stop And Search Powers Relating To Section 47a Of Schedule 6b To The Terrorism Act 200022 Consultation Code Of Practice (Northern Ireland) For The Authorisation And Exercise Of Stop And Search Powers Relating To Sections 43, 43a And 47a Of The Terrorism Act 2000 (Northern Ireland office, Febuary 2012) https//www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136403/consultation_on_the_code_of_practice_for_stop_and_search_powers_under_the_.pdf acc essed 25 November 201423 S1(3) PAC 198424 Code of Practice, para 2.2 PACE25 Andrew Sander, Richard Young and Mandy Burton , Criminal Justice( 4th edn, Oxford University Press,2010) 84 26 Stop and search QAs (Policy Pages, 21 August 2014) http//www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/stop_search_qa_august2014.pdf accessed 25 November 201427 Howarth v Commissioner of Policeof Police of the Metropolis2011 EWHC 281828 Andrew Sander, Richard Young and Mandy Burton , Criminal Justice ( 4th edn, Oxford University Press,2010) 15729 Code of Practice under Terrorism Act 200030 Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Stop and Search www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/stop_search_notes.doc accessed 24 November 201431 Equality and Human Rights Commission, The Human Rights Act http//www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act accessed 22 November 201432 Equality and Human Rights Commission, The Human Rights Act http//www.e qualityhumanrights.com/your-rights/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act accessed 22 November 201433 Article 8 The right to respect for private and family life, plaza and arrangement ( Human Rights Review 2012) http//www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_8.pdf accessed 24 November 201434 Article 5 HRA 199835 Article 5 The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence ( Human Rights Review 2012) http//www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_5.pdf accessed 24 November 201436 Article 8 HRA 199837 Article 8 The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence ( Human Rights Review 2012) http//www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_8.pdf accessed 24 November 201438 Article 14 HRA 199839 Human Rights thematic Review on the use of police powers to stop and search and stop and question under the Terro rism Act 2000 and the Justice and Security (NI) Act 2007 (Northen Ireland policing Board) http//www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/stop_and_search_thematic_review__final_draft__15_october_2013.pdf accessed 24 November 201440 Joel Miller, Stop and Search in England, A Reformed Tactic or Business As Usual? (2010) 50 British ledger of Criminology 95441 Ben Bowling and Coretta Phillips, Disproportionate and Discriminatory Reviewing theEvidence on Police Stop and Search ( Modern Law Review,2007) http//www.stop-watch.org/uploads/documents/modern_law_review.pdf accessed 27 November 201442 Gillan and Quinton v. UK 4158/05 2010 ECHR 28