Terrorism Act 2000 - Revision history

Rizwaan Sabir: /* Section 44 powers (Stop and Search) */

2010-01-12T18:27:26Z

Section 44 powers (Stop and Search)

Rizwaan Sabir: /* Ruling on illegality of Section 44 */

2010-01-12T18:26:39Z

Ruling on illegality of Section 44

Rizwaan Sabir: /* Ruling on illegality of Section 44 */

2010-01-12T18:26:06Z

Ruling on illegality of Section 44

Rizwaan Sabir: /* Section 44 powers (Stop and Search) */

2010-01-12T18:24:23Z

Section 44 powers (Stop and Search)

Rizwaan Sabir: /* International groups */

2009-11-25T20:30:15Z

International groups

Claire Robinson: /* Proscribed groups */

2009-11-24T13:59:27Z

Proscribed groups

Claire Robinson: /* Overall impact */

2009-11-24T13:53:14Z

Overall impact

Claire Robinson: /* Section 44 powers (Stop and Search) */

2009-11-24T13:52:38Z

Section 44 powers (Stop and Search)

Claire Robinson: /* Alleged abuses */

2009-11-24T13:51:36Z

Alleged abuses

Claire Robinson: /* Criticisms of Section 44 */

2009-11-24T13:50:51Z

Criticisms of Section 44

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 Under section 44, the police are authorised to stop and search any vehicle or person (within an area defined by the [[Home Secretary]]) if the police suspect them of being involved in terrorism.<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2 Section 44: Terrorism Act 200], accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
-The police are also authorised to seize any article, that could "could be used in connection with terrorism".<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2 Section 44: Terrorism Act 200], 15 December 2007, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
+The police are also authorised to seize any article, that could "could be used in connection with terrorism".<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2 Section 44: Terrorism Act 200], 15 December 2007, accessed 23 November 2009</ref> However, in a landmark victory, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has declared that the arbitary nature of the section 44 powers allowed the police to stop and search any individual without having a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in terrorism or related activity and therefore ruled that this was a violation of Article 8 (Respect for Private & Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref> The case originally came to the attention of the ECHR with the stopping and searching of Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton on route to an anti-arms demonstration in the Excel Centre, London, in September 2003. They were awarded £33,400 in costs and expenses."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref>
-Between July and December 2007, the BBC reported that more than 14,000 people and vehicles had been stopped and searched by British Transport Police in Scotland.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7146080.stm Random Searches on Rail Network], BBC News, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
+The ruling means that the British government will have replace the section 44 clause with a more proportinate and fairer power. In response to the ruling, Liberty, the human rights organisation that has supported Gillan and Quinton throughout the case have stated that "the public, police and court of human rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law...In the coming weeks parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."
 ===Criticisms of Section 44===
@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 One of the most fragrant abuses of section 44 stop and search powers was used against "a 43-year-old man walking with his 11-year-old daughter and a neighbour's six-year-old...[the police] took his mobile phone and USB stick, searched the [11 and 6 year old] girls, took a photograph of him with their own camera and then made him stand in front of a CCTV camera so that his face was recorded".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/sep/11/stop-search-children-terror-law Searching Children Abuses Terror Laws], The Guardian, 11 September 2009, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
 ==Section 57 & 58 - Possession & Collection==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 12 January 2010
Line 136:		Line 136:
	One of the most fragrant abuses of section 44 stop and search powers was used against "a 43-year-old man walking with his 11-year-old daughter and a neighbour's six-year-old...[the police] took his mobile phone and USB stick, searched the [11 and 6 year old] girls, took a photograph of him with their own camera and then made him stand in front of a CCTV camera so that his face was recorded".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/sep/11/stop-search-children-terror-law Searching Children Abuses Terror Laws], The Guardian, 11 September 2009, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>		One of the most fragrant abuses of section 44 stop and search powers was used against "a 43-year-old man walking with his 11-year-old daughter and a neighbour's six-year-old...[the police] took his mobile phone and USB stick, searched the [11 and 6 year old] girls, took a photograph of him with their own camera and then made him stand in front of a CCTV camera so that his face was recorded".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/sep/11/stop-search-children-terror-law Searching Children Abuses Terror Laws], The Guardian, 11 September 2009, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>

−	~~===Ruling on illegality of Section 44===~~

−	In a landmark victory, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared that the arbitary nature of the section 44 powers allowed the police to stop and search any individual without having a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in terrorism or related activity and therefore ruled that this was a violation of Article 8 (Respect for Private & Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref> The case originally came to the attention of the ECHR with the stopping and searching of Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton on route to an anti-arms demonstration in the Excel Centre, London, in September 2003. They were awarded £33,400 in costs and expenses."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref>
−
−
−	The ruling means that the British government will have replace the section 44 clause with a more proportinate and fairer power. In response to the ruling, Liberty, the human rights organisation that has supported Gillan and Quinton throughout the case have stated that "the public, police and court of human rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law...In the coming weeks parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."

	==Section 57 & 58 - Possession & Collection==		==Section 57 & 58 - Possession & Collection==

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 ===Ruling on illegality of Section 44===
-In a landmark victory, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared that the arbitary nature of the section 44 powers allowed the police to stop and search any individual without having a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in terrorism or related activity and therefore ruled that this was a violation of Article 8 (Respect for Private & Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref> The case originally came to the attention of the ECHR with the stopping and searching of Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton on route to an anti-arms demonstration in the Excel Centre, London in September 2003. They were awarded £33,400 in costs and expenses."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref>
+In a landmark victory, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared that the arbitary nature of the section 44 powers allowed the police to stop and search any individual without having a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in terrorism or related activity and therefore ruled that this was a violation of Article 8 (Respect for Private & Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref> The case originally came to the attention of the ECHR with the stopping and searching of Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton on route to an anti-arms demonstration in the Excel Centre, London, in September 2003. They were awarded £33,400 in costs and expenses."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref>
-The ruling means that the British government will have replace the section 44 clause with a more proportinate and fairer power. In response to the ruling, Liberty, the human rights organisation that has supported Gillan and Quinton throughout the caset stated that "the public, police and court of human rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law...In the coming weeks parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."
+The ruling means that the British government will have replace the section 44 clause with a more proportinate and fairer power. In response to the ruling, Liberty, the human rights organisation that has supported Gillan and Quinton throughout the case have stated that "the public, police and court of human rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law...In the coming weeks parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."
 ==Section 57 & 58 - Possession & Collection==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 12 January 2010
Line 135:		Line 135:

	One of the most fragrant abuses of section 44 stop and search powers was used against "a 43-year-old man walking with his 11-year-old daughter and a neighbour's six-year-old...[the police] took his mobile phone and USB stick, searched the [11 and 6 year old] girls, took a photograph of him with their own camera and then made him stand in front of a CCTV camera so that his face was recorded".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/sep/11/stop-search-children-terror-law Searching Children Abuses Terror Laws], The Guardian, 11 September 2009, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>		One of the most fragrant abuses of section 44 stop and search powers was used against "a 43-year-old man walking with his 11-year-old daughter and a neighbour's six-year-old...[the police] took his mobile phone and USB stick, searched the [11 and 6 year old] girls, took a photograph of him with their own camera and then made him stand in front of a CCTV camera so that his face was recorded".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/sep/11/stop-search-children-terror-law Searching Children Abuses Terror Laws], The Guardian, 11 September 2009, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
		+
		+	===Ruling on illegality of Section 44===
		+
		+	In a landmark victory, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared that the arbitary nature of the section 44 powers allowed the police to stop and search any individual without having a reasonable suspicion that they are involved in terrorism or related activity and therefore ruled that this was a violation of Article 8 (Respect for Private & Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref> The case originally came to the attention of the ECHR with the stopping and searching of Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton on route to an anti-arms demonstration in the Excel Centre, London in September 2003. They were awarded £33,400 in costs and expenses."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal Stop and Search Powers Illegal,European Court Rules], The Guardian, 12 January 2010, accessed 12 January 2010</ref>
		+
		+
		+	The ruling means that the British government will have replace the section 44 clause with a more proportinate and fairer power. In response to the ruling, Liberty, the human rights organisation that has supported Gillan and Quinton throughout the caset stated that "the public, police and court of human rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law...In the coming weeks parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."

	==Section 57 & 58 - Possession & Collection==		==Section 57 & 58 - Possession & Collection==

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 * [[Al Ghurabaa|Al Gurabaa]]
 * [[Al Ittihad Al Islamia]] (AIAI)
-* [[Al Qaida]]
+* [[Al Qaeda]]
 * [[Ansar Al Islam]] (AI)
 * [[Ansar Al Sunna]] (AS):

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 == Proscribed groups ==
-The Home Secretary has the power (as was the case in previous anti-terror legislations) to proscribe organisations that are believed to be involved in terrorist activities. Under the [[Terrorism Act 2006]], groups that are beleived to be invovled in [[Glorification of Terrorism]] or [[Encouragment of Terrorism]] can also be proscribed, as is the case with the now defunct [[Al Ghurabaa]] and [[Saved Sect or Saviour Sect]].
+The Home Secretary has the power (as was the case in previous anti-terror legislations) to proscribe organisations that are believed to be involved in terrorist activities. Under the [[Terrorism Act 2006]], groups that are believed to be involved in [[Glorification of Terrorism]] or [[Encouragement of Terrorism]] can also be proscribed, as is the case with the now defunct [[Al Ghurabaa]] and [[Saved Sect or Saviour Sect]].
 At present, there are

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 In his comprehensive commentary on the Terrorism Act 2000 and other anti-terrorism legislations, Professor Clive Walker of the University of Leeds states:
-"The Terrorism Act 2000 represents a worthwhile attempt to fulfil the role of a modern code against terrorism, though it fails to meet the desired standards in all respects. There are aspects where rights are probably breached, and its mechanisms to ensure democratic accountability and constitutionalism are even more deficient, as discussed in the section on ‘Scrutiny’ earlier in this chapter. It is also a sobering thought, proffered by the Home Affairs Committee, that the result is that this country has more anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any other developed democracy.’ (Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001 (2001-02 HC 351) para.1). But at least that result initially flowed from a solemnly studied and carefully constructed legislative exercise."<ref>[http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9781841741833 ''The Anti-Terrorism Legislation'' (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)]</ref>
+"The Terrorism Act 2000 represents a worthwhile attempt to fulfil the role of a modern code against terrorism, though it fails to meet the desired standards in all respects. There are aspects where rights are probably breached, and its mechanisms to ensure democratic accountability and constitutionalism are even more deficient, as discussed in the section on ‘Scrutiny’ earlier in this chapter. It is also a sobering thought, proffered by the Home Affairs Committee, that the result is that this country has more anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any other developed democracy.’ (Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001 (2001-02 HC 351) para.1). But at least that result initially flowed from a solemnly studied and carefully constructed legislative exercise."<ref>[http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9781841741833 ''The Anti-Terrorism Legislation''], (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)</ref>
 ==Alleged abuses==

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 Most of the abuse that has taken place under the Terrorism Act 2000 has pertained to people being stopped under section 44. A notable exampl was when In October 2005 [[Sally Cameron]] was held for four hours after being arrested under [[Section 41]] for walking on a cycle path in a controlled port area. Discussing the events of when she was arrested, Sally Cameron stated:
-"I’ve been walking to work every morning for months and months to keep fit. One day, I was told by a guard on the gate that I couldn’t use the route any more because it was solely a cycle path and he said, if I was caught doing it again, I’d be arrested...The next thing I knew, the harbour master had driven up behind me with a megaphone, saying, ‘You’re trespassing, please turn back’. It was totally ridiculous. I started laughing and kept on walking. Cyclists going past were also laughing...But then two police cars roared up beside me and cut me off, like a scene from Starsky and Hutch, and officers told me I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act. The harbour master was waffling on and saying that because of September 11, I would be arrested and charged."<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html Two wheels: Good. Two Legs: Terrorist Suspect, The Times], 17 October 2005, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
+"I’ve been walking to work every morning for months and months to keep fit. One day, I was told by a guard on the gate that I couldn’t use the route any more because it was solely a cycle path and he said, if I was caught doing it again, I’d be arrested...The next thing I knew, the harbour master had driven up behind me with a megaphone, saying, ‘You’re trespassing, please turn back’. It was totally ridiculous. I started laughing and kept on walking. Cyclists going past were also laughing...But then two police cars roared up beside me and cut me off, like a scene from Starsky and Hutch, and officers told me I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act. The harbour master was waffling on and saying that because of September 11, I would be arrested and charged."<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html Two wheels: Good. Two Legs: Terrorist Suspect], The Times, 17 October 2005, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
 ===Section 44===
-*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 section 44. There was a huge outcry that this was a grave abuse and misuse of ant-terror powers. The pressure group [[Liberty]] took the case to [[High Court]], but the Judge ruled in favour of the police.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,10674,1075191,00.html Arms Fair Protetors Lose Legal Challenge], 31 October 2003, The Guardian, accessed 24 November 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/nov/01/terrorism.immigrationpolicy Police Can Use Terror Powers on Protestors], 1 November 2003, The Guardian, accesseed 24 November 2009</ref>
+*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 section 44. There was a huge outcry that this was a grave abuse and misuse of ant-terror powers. The pressure group [[Liberty]] took the case to [[High Court]], but the Judge ruled in favour of the police.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,10674,1075191,00.html Arms Fair Protetors Lose Legal Challenge], 31 October 2003, The Guardian, accessed 24 November 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/nov/01/terrorism.immigrationpolicy Police Can Use Terror Powers on Protestors], 1 November 2003, The Guardian, accessed 24 November 2009</ref>
 *[[Walter Wolfgang]] was removed from the 2005 [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] conference for heckling [[Jack Straw]].  He was later stopped by police under the Terrorism Act 2000 on attempting to re-enter the conference.<ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3620110/The-police-must-end-their-abuse-of-anti-terror-legislation.html The Police Must End Their Abuse of Anti-Terror Legislation], The Telegraph, 3 October 2005, accessed 24 Noember 2009</ref>

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 ===Criticisms of Section 44===
-In relation to the section 44 powers, Osama Saeed of the Scottish Islamic Foundation and [[SNP]] candidate for Glasgow Central argued that the powers were open to abuse because police are authorised to stop and search anyone "without any suspicion of wrongdoing", which will inevitably lead to the "powers being used discriminately against people that look Asian".<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7072882.stm Anti-Terrorism Operation Launched, BBC News] 1 November 2007, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
+In relation to the section 44 powers, Osama Saeed of the Scottish Islamic Foundation and [[SNP]] candidate for Glasgow Central argued that the powers were open to abuse because police are authorised to stop and search anyone "without any suspicion of wrongdoing", which will inevitably lead to the "powers being used discriminately against people that look Asian".<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7072882.stm Anti-Terrorism Operation Launched], BBC News, 1 November 2007, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>
 One of the most fragrant abuses of section 44 stop and search powers was used against "a 43-year-old man walking with his 11-year-old daughter and a neighbour's six-year-old...[the police] took his mobile phone and USB stick, searched the [11 and 6 year old] girls, took a photograph of him with their own camera and then made him stand in front of a CCTV camera so that his face was recorded".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/sep/11/stop-search-children-terror-law Searching Children Abuses Terror Laws], The Guardian, 11 September 2009, accessed 23 November 2009</ref>