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 period of 12 months. Under the Arms and Ammunition Act, this enabled a public prosecutor to order that, for a randomly selected period of 12 hours, any person within the designated area might be searched for the presence of weapons. The prosecutor had to give reasons for the order by reference to recent reports. The applicant refused to submit to a search when stopped and was arrested and prosecuted for failing to obey a lawful order.
Held: The applicant’s complaint that this interference with his article 8 rights was not ‘in accordance with the law’ was limited to the ineffectiveness of the judicial remedies available, in particular that no prior judicial authorisation for the order was necessary. The court pointed out that the Burgomaster’s designation had to be based on a byelaw adopted by an elected representative body, which also had powers to investigate the Burgomaster’s use of the power. There was also an objection and appeal mechanism. The criminal courts could then examine the lawfulness of the use made of it. Hence the power was ‘in accordance with the law’. The court went on to find that the interference was ‘necessary in a democratic society’. The legal framework involved both the Burgomaster and the prosecutor, hence no single executive officer could alone order a preventive search operation. These preventive searches were having their intended effect of helping to reduce violent crime in Amsterdam. These reasons were sufficient to justify the unpleasantness and inconvenience to the applicant.
Citations:
49458/06, [2012] ECHR 946
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Roberts, 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
Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460137