• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Police acted illegally

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,256
Location
Yorkshire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10283701.stm
Thousands of anti-terror searches were illegal

Thousands of people across the UK might have been stopped and searched illegally, figures released by the Home Office suggest.

Powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act were used in "error" after the proper authorisations were not given.

In one example, for April 2004, the Met Police wrongly stopped 840 people.

Dozens of other examples from across the UK have been uncovered before rules were tightened in 2008.

Police Minister Nick Herbert said administrative errors were to blame and he has ordered an internal review of procedures.

The Metropolitan Police is also urgently considering what steps can be taken to contact the individuals concerned.

Extremists

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows police to stop and search someone without suspicion that an offence has occurred.

The controversial powers can be used only in specific areas on the orders of a police chief, with later approval by the home secretary.

Supporters say such powers can make it harder for extremists to carry out reconnaissance in public areas, such as near high-profile tourist attractions.

But critics, including the government's reviewer of terror legislation, Lord Carlile, say they unfairly target some ethnic groups and increase community tensions.

The Met is responsible for the vast majority of section 44 operations, many of which take place in Westminster and at major transport hubs or "iconic" tourist sites such as Buckingham Palace.

The force only discovered the April 2004 blunder after a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act earlier this year.

Officials researching stop and search authorisations found a Home Office minister had not signed within 48 hours.

A Met spokesman said the mistake was not noticed in 2004 due to an "oversight" and procedures have been reviewed.

Asked whether the force now faced a flood of legal actions, he said: "It is a matter for individuals to seek legal advice in relation to this issue."
The spokesman also denied the force had misled the public, saying: "The Met first became aware of the issue in April 2010 during the process of compiling data in answer to a Freedom of Information request.

"All public statements issued before that date were made in good faith and there was no intention to mislead the public."

The Met case sparked a trawl for errors across the UK.

Officials discovered 33 occasions when forces asked for a 29-day search window, even though the legislation only allows a maximum of 28 days. In two cases, forces asked for 30 days.

'Public confidence'

The Home Office has written to each of the 14 police forces concerned to alert them to the errors.

It said the forces were now in the process of assessing how many individuals were illegally stopped and searched and would "do their best to contact those involved".

Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones said: "I am very concerned by these historical administrative errors. To maintain public confidence in our counter-terrorism powers, it is absolutely crucial all those responsible for exercising them do so properly.

"I take these matters extremely seriously and have instructed the department to conduct an urgent review of current procedures to ensure that errors can be prevented in future.

"The government is already committed to undertaking a review of counter-terrorism legislation which will include the use of stop and search powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. We shall make our findings known as soon as possible."

Officials at the Home Office, National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) are examining the mistakes.

The 40 flawed operations uncovered by officials include three which have previously been identified as being based on flawed paperwork.

The forces involved are: Metropolitan Police, North Yorkshire, Hampshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Greater Manchester, Fife, South Wales and Thames Valley.

Invalid operations linked to Sussex Police and South Wales Police have been highlighted to Parliament previously.

Acpo lead officer on stop and search, Chief Constable Craig Mackey, said: "Stop and search can work well when it is carried out with the support and understanding of the community. Used correctly, it can create a hostile environment for terrorists to operate in and help protect the public."

In January this year, the powers were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. The new coalition government has said it is reviewing their use, as part of a wider overhaul of anti-terror legislation.
Criminal PCs 7141 / 1317 at Leeds (it looks like those numbers - the handwriting is appalling. I would expect a 7 year old to write neater than that) committed this crime against me in 2007. Is there anything I can do? An apology, admission that they acted inappropriately and promising not to do it again, would suffice, I don't want compensation. I have the original form, as scribbled on by the illiterate, criminal policeman.

While waiting for a delayed train at Leeds, I was stopped by the criminal policemen who were awaiting Middlesbrough supporters on the delayed train. As they were bored, they decided to carry out an illegal search on me because I was photographing a train on an adjacent platform.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Donny Dave

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,394
Location
Doncaster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10283701.stm
Criminal PCs 7141 / 1317 at Leeds (it looks like those numbers - the handwriting is appalling. I would expect a 7 year old to write neater than that) committed this crime against me in 2007. Is there anything I can do? An apology, admission that they acted inappropriately and promising not to do it again, would suffice, I don't want compensation. I have the original form, as scribbled on by the illiterate, criminal policeman.

While waiting for a delayed train at Leeds, I was stopped by the criminal policemen who were awaiting Middlesbrough supporters on the delayed train. As they were bored, they decided to carry out an illegal search on me because I was photographing a train on an adjacent platform.

BBC News said:
The forces involved are: Metropolitan Police, North Yorkshire, Hampshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Greater Manchester, Fife, South Wales and Thames Valley.

Seeing as West Yorkshire police have not been implicated, then I don't see how you can get an apology from them.

Further more, I think you should be apologising to the West Yorkshire police, in particular, PCs 7141 and 1317 for calling them criminals when according to the BBC, they are nothing of the sort.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
What an utter load of bollocks. Of course they know about it.

Be thankful you're not of Middle Eastern heritage or appearance. It becomes quite a regular occurrence.

I don't think there's any point in taking action. Nothing will come out of it, just a phoney bull**** apology or a reply saying they acted in the interest of public safety, and you'll just be more ticked off than before.

David, who are you to tell Yorkie what to do without ANY knowledge of his case?!
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,256
Location
Yorkshire
Seeing as West Yorkshire police have not been implicated, then I don't see how you can get an apology from them.

Further more, I think you should be apologising to the West Yorkshire police, in particular, PCs 7141 and 1317 for calling them criminals when according to the BBC, they are nothing of the sort.
They clearly acted illegally. There has to be "reasonable suspicion" that I could be a terrorist for them to act in the way they did. Are you saying that taking a photo of a train, while changing trains, is reasonable suspicion for being a terrorist? C'mon, these police officers are thick enough to think that will wash, but it shouldn't wash with anyone here.

They acted totally inappropriately, just because they were bored. No other reason. Nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is an excuse that anti-civil liberties people use.

I find it very disappointing that anyone can defend the use of anti-terrorism laws against people taking a photo while changing trains. :|

Ultimately I blame Labour for being so anti-civil liberties. Although I am not really a fan of the Tories, I am glad new 'Labour' are no longer able to wreck our civil liberties and increase our debts further. Good riddance.
 

Donny Dave

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,394
Location
Doncaster
David, who are you to tell Yorkie what to do without ANY knowledge of his case?!

Because I have been stopped and searched before by the police. I just don't make a song and dance about it.

PS. You don't know the history between me and Yorkie. We've had quite a few cracking debates (and arguments), but mostly over MSN or in person.

I find it very disappointing that anyone can defend the use of anti-terrorism laws against people taking a photo while changing trains. :|

If that is aimed at me, then when have I ever defended the anti-terror laws? :?

They acted totally inappropriately, just because they were bored. No other reason. Nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is an excuse that anti-civil liberties people use.

Ultimately I blame Labour for being so anti-civil liberties. Although I am not really a fan of the Tories, I am glad new 'Labour' are no longer able to wreck our civil liberties and increase our debts further. Good riddance.

It's true that Labour have created the problem by introducing a whole raft of measures "to counter terrorism", and these have been exagerated by various groups, having people show little or no respect to the police when debating said laws, or creating a scene if approached by a police officer (Yorkie, this isn't aimed at you btw) doesn't help matters at all.

In my opinion, all the anti terror laws should be redrafted to make them well defined and fair, while still being tough on those who are planning acts of terror, or, god forbid, carry out an atrocity, not the current muddle they are now ....
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,256
Location
Yorkshire
Because I have been stopped and searched before by the police. I just don't make a song and dance about it.
But I didn't really, I've just let out steam here. But you have every right not to be happy at being stopped & searched.
PS. You don't know the history between me and Yorkie. We've had quite a few cracking debates (and arguments), but mostly over MSN or in person.
We only argue about the police :lol:
If that is aimed at me, then when have I ever defended the anti-terror laws? :?
No, I didn't mean that and didn't mean to suggest you have defended them, sorry if it came across that way.

I meant the use of such laws against people for simply taking a photo of a train. Obviously there is an issue with various 'anti-terror' laws because they are open to misuse. However if applied correctly and legally, then they wouldn't be stopping people for taking photos of trains. Bear in mind I was literally changing trains, not hanging around on the end of a platform all day (not that doing so means someone should be searched for doing that, but my point is that it is not unusual behaviour let alone suspicious).

It's true that Labour have created the problem by introducing a whole raft of measures "to counter terrorism", and these have been exagerated by various groups, having people show little or no respect to the police when debating said laws, or creating a scene if approached by a police officer (Yorkie, this isn't aimed at you btw) doesn't help matters at all.

In my opinion, all the anti terror laws should be redrafted to make them well defined and fair, while still being tough on those who are planning acts of terror, or, god forbid, carry out an atrocity, not the current muddle they are now ....
Agreed.

And for the record I did comply fully, however much I disagreed with it, and it was amicable. In the end I think the officer was a bit worried that I was going to make a complaint. I chose not to bother with the hassle. Perhaps I should have done (I'd encourage anyone in a situation to do so).
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
If you were subject to a stop and search under S44, and it is subsequently found that this was applied incorrectly, then this would make that stop and search in itself illegal and your detention unlawful.

Legally every person has the right to free movement and can only be detained in the circumstances specified in Law.

In your case I would suggest that you were detained illegally as there was no legal basis upon which you could be.

I would suggest you make a call to someone like Bindmans who specialise in this area of the Law.
http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=121

Alternatively speak to Liberty and seek a view.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/
 

devon_metro

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Messages
7,715
Location
London
As i've said many time before, Yorkie you really should write in the Daily Mail. If i've ever seen such hysteria!
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,498
You could complain Yorkie, but I don't think it'd achieve much now, tbh. Since 2007 most Police Officers seem to have been better briefed on the use of S.44 anyway, so if you were to encounter those officers again in a similar situation they might not bother you now anyway.

Also, looking at the story, the problem seems to be areas where S.44 searches can be carried out and whether authorisation had be given by the Home Office for certain areas to exist. Seeing as the story doesn't mention the BTP, I assume that the formalities to allow S.44 searches to be carried out on the railway network must have been carried out correctly (The whole railway is designated as an area where S.44 searches can be carried out, it is renewed as a matter of course every time it runs out, I believe). Thus, as I understand this story, your search wasn't illegal in the same way as those described in the story.

Hope that makes sense, I wrote that with half an eye on Formula 1 free practice on the TV. :p

Anyway, I look forward to the Tories review of S.44. S.44 has only served as a further stick to beat the Police with and a bother to photographers and rail enthusiasts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top