Stop and search controversy continues – the Round-up

22 March 2016 by

Brought to you by Hannah Lynes

In the news

According to research released by the Home Office, large increases in stop and search operations have no discernible effect on crime reduction. The official study examined crime rates across 10 London boroughs in the first year of Operation Blunt 2, which led to a surge in the number of searches from 34,154 in the year before to 123,335 in 2008/2009.

The findings are likely to lend support to the position of the Home Secretary, Theresa May who in 2014 introduced new measures to curtail reliance on the powers. She has previously been critical of claims by the Metropolitan Police that a rise in knife crime in recent months is linked to a drop in the use of stop and search, warning against a “knee-jerk reaction.”

Police powers to conduct the searches have proved highly controversial, with campaigners arguing that ethnic minority groups are disproportionately targeted. An analysis by the Independent found that between December 2014 and April 2015, black people were more likely to be stopped than white people in 36 out of 39 police forces.

However, a recent Supreme Court challenge to the power contained in section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was unsuccessful. The Act permits a police officer to stop and search a person for offensive weapons, whether or not he has grounds for suspicion, when an authorisation from a senior police officer is in force.

The Court dismissed the claim that the power was not ‘in accordance with the law’ and in breach of article 8 ECHR, which requires the law to have sufficient safeguards against the risk that it will be used in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. It held that safeguards, including the requirement to give reasons both for the authorisation and the stop and search, made it possible to judge whether the power had been exercised lawfully.

In other news:

The Guardian: An IPCC investigation has identified systemic and individual failings in the care given by Hampshire constabulary to Martine Brandon, a ‘very vulnerable’ woman who committed suicide in police custody. Detention officers carried out “unsatisfactory and inadequate” checks on Ms Brandon, which amounted to police misconduct

BBC: Cameras are to be allowed into Crown courts for the first time, under a pilot scheme proposed by the Ministry of Justice. The sentencing remarks of judges will be filmed, with the aim of bringing greater transparency into the criminal justice system. However, the filming of defendants, witnesses and victims will remain prohibited.

The High Court has put an end to the practice in magistrates’ courts of convicting a defendant twice for the same racially or religiously aggravated offence. James Henderson had received three convictions for racially aggravated harassment under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and for three other offences relating to the same incidents under the Public Order Act 1986. Charges for the less serious underlying offence will no longer be included on a defendant’s record. Read the Guardian report on the judgment here.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has conducted a comprehensive review on progress towards greater equality and human rights protection in England. The report makes for bleak reading, highlighting how many disadvantaged groups are being left still further behind the rest of the population. Read about its findings on RightsInfo.

 In the courts

Hammerton v UK

The applicant was a British national committed to prison for civil contempt of court in family proceedings. The committal decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal, which found that the County Court had violated article 6 ECHR by allowing the committal hearing to proceed despite the applicant having no legal representation.

The ECtHR rejected the claim that the violation of article 6 (right to a fair trial) had rendered his detention unlawful under article 5 (right to liberty). It could not be said that the violation of article 6 amounted to a flagrant denial of justice.

However, the Court found that the domestic courts had failed to provide him with a remedy in the form of financial compensation for the violation of article 6. Accordingly, there had been a breach of article 13 (right to an effective remedy),

Events

The Rule of Law. the European Court of Human Rights and the UK: A New Court for a New Era? This half-day event will provide an opportunity to hear leading experts consider how the Strasbourg Court has evolved in recent years, and reflect upon its longer-term future. It will be held in London on Wednesday 20 April at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. Further information about the event can be found here.

If you would like your event featured on the UK Human Rights Blog, contact Jim Duffy:  jim.duffy@1cor.com

 

 

4 comments


  1. tetevi1 says:

    A Supreme Court Judgment I strongly criticised in an article I wrote for Oxford Human Rights Hub:

    http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/minorities-suffer-as-the-supreme-court-supports-suspicionless-stop-searches/

  2. D.R.Fairn says:

    Reblogged this on The Burst Signal..

  3. Anyoldiron says:

    It rather looks as if “The Human Rights Act” is DEAD. The last time I came across “Stop and Search” was in the last WAR and we understood what it was all about. We are supposed to be at PEACE and our Government has signed TREATIES too-so what was the ratification of those TREATIES was all about eh if we can be stopped and SEARCHED?.

  4. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: