header-logo header-logo

15 July 2010
Issue: 7426 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Stop & search halted

Section 44 stopped in its tracks by court ruling

The government has suspended the “stop and search” powers of s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Section 44 allowed assistant chief constables to secretly designate areas for stop and search, without suspicion by a police constable. Designations lasted 28 days but have been made on a rolling basis for years at a time.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in January that s 44 violates the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Art 8, in Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 28.

The case arose from an arms fair in the Docklands area of East London in September 2003 where journalists and peace protestors were subject to stop and search by police. A challenge revealed that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion on a rolling basis since 2001.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, says: “Liberty welcomes the end of the infamous s 44 stop and search power that criminalised and alienated more people than it ever protected. We argued against it for ten years and spent the last seven challenging it all the way to the Court of Human Rights.”

Law Society President Robert Heslett says: “Police powers must be proportionate and respect fundamental human rights, otherwise they are open to abuse and can risk creating disrespect of the police among law-abiding citizens.”

Announcing the new plans, Home Secretary Theresa May said: “To comply with the judgment, but avoid pre-empting the review of counter-terrorism legislation, I have decided to introduce interim guidelines for the police. I am therefore changing the test for authorisation for the use of s 44 powers from requiring a search to be ‘expedient’ for the prevention of terrorism, to the stricter test of it being ‘necessary’ for that purpose.”

 

Issue: 7426 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll