FryingPanFire

Jump to Comments

The Home Office is to appeal a European Court of Human Rights decision stating that the use of Section 44 (Terrorism Act 2000) to stop and search individuals violates the right to respect for a private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights.

Section 44 has long drawn criticism from protestors who argue the police have used the power to infringe their right to peaceful protest.

Policing and Security Minister David Hanson MP argued that the powers under Section 44 are “an important tool in a package of measures in the on-going fight against terrorism.” He said that he was “disappointed” with the ruling and “will seek to appeal”.

The case brought to the ECHR was that of Kevin Gillan and journalist Pennie Quinton who were stopped and searched en route to demonstrations against the world’s largest arms fair, Defense and Security Equipment International (DSEi), in 2003.

As she was stopped, Pennie volunteered her press cards with the hope of being waved on by the police. Instead Metropolitan Police searched her and Gillan under Section 44 and were ordered to stop filming.

Press freedom isn’t always a high priority for those policing protests. Press cards, as any journalist can tell you, are no guarantee of special treatment by the Metropolitan Police. Those that read “NUJ” are taken less seriously by our uniformed friends because “anyone can get those”. Despite carrying press cards emblazoned with the logo of a corporate television station I worked for, I’ve not only been stopped and searched under Section 44 but also arrested. And charged. And am now due to stand trial this February. For impersonating a police officer.

On other occasions, I’ve received hassle and faced physical injury at the hands of the Metropolitan Police. And that’s while I’ve been armed with that typical terrorist ruse of a television news crew consisting of me, a reporter, a cameraman and a rather conspicuous satellite truck.

Whilst manning newsdesks, an occasional complaint from journalists on the ground would involve members of the Metropolitan Police getting heavy-handed with cameramen and their kit. Nothing much comes from these incidents…phone calls from bosses to bosses ends up in apology and an unsaid agreement that they’d do the same dance when another such incident comes up in future. The link between newsrooms and the police is too great (one relies on the other for tip-offs on events, the other thinks they’re winning the PR war by doing so).

The Metropolitan Police are yet to issue any new instruction to their officers with respect to today’s ruling. I wonder how many stops and searches have happened since the Court’s decision. Because the Home Office have three months within which to appeal, I doubt the general public will see much change in how the police operate.

Section 44 allows senior officers to designate entire areas of their patch as stop and search zones based on their likelihood of being a terrorism target. Every train station in the UK is covered by a Section 44 order and there are over 100 stop and search zones in London. Because the Home Office is afraid such information might give terrorists ideas, most exact locations of stop and search zones are kept secret. So nobody really knows whether you are in an area covered by Section 44 and whether they are likely to be stopped and searched going about your daily business.

Even more invidious has been the way police forces across the UK have used Section 44 to target protestors.

What I want to ask is, by saying they will seek to appeal the ECHR’s decision, what do the Home Office think they know and who do they seek to control? And to what end? It’s as if, as people living in the UK, it’s assumed we are guilty and have to prove ourselves innocent.

=====

This article was originally published in the Index on Censorship, 12 January 2010.