Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions: SC 22 Jul 2015

Questions on Entry must be answered

B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that Schedule. She appealed, saying that Schedule 7 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular with articles 8 5 and 6.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Kerr dissenting). Althought the detention and questioning was an interference with her humand rights, that interference was in accordance with a law providing sufficient protections, and was proportionate and had a proper founding in the need to prevent and detect terrorism. The detention had been for no longer than was necessary for these purposes. Answers given under such questioning should not be expected to put her at risk of prosecution, since they would in all likelihood not be admissible under s78 of the 1984 Act.
Lord Hughes said: ‘The Schedule 7 powers are patently not aimed at the obtaining of information for the purpose of prosecuting either the person questioned or his spouse. Whilst that does not by itself mean that there is no real risk that such information could be so used subsequently, it is an indicator that the process of information gathering is not to be limited by the operation of privilege. The reality is that Schedule 7 powers would be rendered very largely nugatory if privilege applied. The necessary implication is that it does not.
Lord Kerr said: ‘The opportunity to exercise a coercive power in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion is antithetical to its legality’

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Dyson MR, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge JJSC
[2015] UKSC 49, [2015] WLR(D) 330, [2016] AC 88, [2015] HRLR 15, [2015] 2 Cr App R 34, [2016] 1 All ER 483, [2015] 3 WLR 344, UKSC 2013/0243
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, Sc Summary
Terrorism Act 2000, European Convention on Human Rights 8 5 6, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Appeal fromBeghal v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 28-Aug-2013
The court considered the compatibility of the powers in Schedule 7 of the 2000 Act to ‘stop, question, and search’ with a detainee’s human rights.
Held: The powers were valid and required. . .
CitedMarper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
CitedMM v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2012
ECHR The applicant complained about the retention and disclosure in the context of a criminal record check of data concerning a caution she received from the police. he applicant, who lived in Northern Ireland, . .
CitedRegina v Boyes 1860
A witness, an accomplice in a criminal offence, who has received the pardon of the Crown under the Great Seal for that offence, has no privilege of refusing to answer questions relating to the offence, which may tend to criminate himself. He is . .
CitedRegina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
CitedRotaru v Romania ECHR 4-May-2000
Grand Chamber – The applicant, a lawyer, complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private life on account of the use against him by the Romanian Intelligence Service of a file which contained information about his conviction for . .
CitedRio Tinto Zinc Corporation v Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Re Westinghouse Electric Corpn Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket No 235 (No 2) HL 1977
The court considered a claim that a party was not compelled to give evidence where it might incriminate him: ‘No one is bound to furnish information against himself. It [the common law] says: ‘If a witness claims the protection of the court, on the . .
CitedUnited States v Ramsey 6-Jun-1977
United States Supreme Court – Title 19 U.S.C. ss 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ that the mail contains illegally imported . .
CitedRank Film Distributors v Video Information Centre CA 1980
The plaintiff film companies accused the defendants of pirating their films. They obtained Anton Piller orders which required the defendants to permit the plaintiffs to enter their premises to inspect and remove any unauthorised films, and three . .
CitedRegina v Simmons 1988
(Supreme Court of Canada) A contraband search based on reasonable suspicion of the presence of smuggled material is an exception to the usual requirements for searches imposed by section 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Dickson CJ said: . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedAmann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to interception of telephone call; Violation of Art. 8 with regard to creation and storing of information card; Preliminary objection . .
CitedAmann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.
Held: The holding and use of the information in question had not been ‘in accordance with the law’, as required by article 8(2), because of the absence from the relevant . .
CitedGillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jan-2010
The claimants had been stopped by the police using powers in the 2000 Act. They were going to a demonstration outside an arms convention. There was no reason given for any suspicion that the searches were needed.
Held: The powers given to the . .
CitedT and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
CitedCommissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another QBD 18-Apr-2011
The defendant had been sued in defamation, and now sought release of police records as to the claimant. . .
CitedCommissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another QBD 24-Oct-2011
The claimant accused the defendant newspaper and journalist of breach of confidence, conversion and Data Protection breach. They said that he had received and published extracts from a confidential internal document leaked to him. . .
CitedAustin and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Mar-2012
Grand Chamber – The applicants complained that their restriction within a police cordon (a measure known as ‘kettling’) for up to seven hours during the course of a demonstration in central London amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach . .
CitedFerdinand Jozef Colon v The Netherlands ECHR 15-May-2012
Acting under the Municipalities Act, with the authority of a byelaw passed by the local council, the Burgomaster of Amsterdam designated most of the old centre of Amsterdam as a security risk area for a period of six months and again for a further . .
CitedSociedade Nacional de Combustatives de Angola UEE v Lundqvist CA 1990
Large quantities of crude oil had been sold at an undervalue by a dishonest consultant and his associates. A Mareva injunction had been granted. The defendant objected to being required to disclose the extent of his foreign assets saying that such . .
CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
CitedRekvenyi v Hungary ECHR 20-May-1999
Hudoc Grand Chamber – No violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+10; No violation of Art. 14+11 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III
The level of precision required of . .
CitedSwiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
CitedIgen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .
CitedGillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jan-2010
The claimants had been stopped by the police using powers in the 2000 Act. They were going to a demonstration outside an arms convention. There was no reason given for any suspicion that the searches were needed.
Held: The powers given to the . .
CitedAmbrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
CitedQuila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
CitedGahramanov v Azerbaijan ECHR 15-Oct-2013
(Admissibility) The applicant was prevented for (on his own case) some four hours from leaving, after being stopped at an airport.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible on the ground that it had not been shown that he had been obliged to remain . .
CitedLord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .

Cited by:
CitedRoberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police, Crime

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.550389