Posted in Uncategorized on January 14th, 2010 by feef
This week saw, what should be, a triumph of human rights over ill-applied and overzealous policing of stop-and-search under Section 44 of the anti terrorism act. The full ruling can be read at the European Court of Human Rights website.
The gist of it is that Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton were stopped and searched under Section 44 of the Anti Terrorism Act 2000 for doing nothing more than going about their daily business. This law gives police powers to stop any individual within “designated areas” and search them for material related to terrorist actions without having to show “reasonable cause” to justify their actions. They believed the stopping and searching of them for no good reason was a violation of their rights, and took the case to the European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled that a stop and search without reasonable grounds, suspicion nor evidence was unlawful and also commented on the fact that the law itself is very wooly in how it is enforced.
The court ruling should have been a triumph of human rights and common sense over an ill thought-out piece of legislation that has been abused time and again since it was brought in, but it wasn’t. The Government’s response to the ruling is that nothing will change and they will continue to stop and search people in spite of it being illegal. Their reasoning? even if a particular law is “unlawful” an official acting in compliance with that law would not themselves be acting unlawfully. In other words, they are only following orders, so can’t be held responsible.
“Only following orders”? I wonder where similar defences were last used?