The appellants had challenged the lawfulness of being stopped and searched by police. The officers relied on an authorisation made under the 2000 Act. They had been on their way to attending an arms fair, intending to demonstrate.
Held: The Act was to be interpreted without deference to the respondent, and because of the powers granted, it had to be interpreted restrictively. There was insufficient evidence that the respondent had properly considered the instructions to be given to his officers. Police officers had not given statements, only their notebooks had been made available. ‘The onus is on the first respondents to show that the interference with the appellants of which complaint is made was lawful. It is not possible to say that the onus has been discharged on the evidence before us. On the appellants’ evidence remarks were made that suggest that the powers could have been used in order ‘to police’ the protest. This would not be a lawful use of the power.’
It was accepted that the stops were an interference with the claimants’ article 8 rights, but this was proportionate and in accordance with law.
and ‘It is clear that Parliament, unusually, has permitted random stopping and searching, but, as we have already indicated when examining the language of the relevant sections, made the use of that power subject to safeguards. The power is only to be used for a single specified purpose for a period of an authorisation granted by a senior officer and confirmed by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the authorisation only has a limited life unless renewed.
We do not find it surprising that the word ‘expedient’ should appear in section 44(3) in conjunction with the power to authorise. The statutory scheme is to leave how the power is to be used to the discretion of the senior officer. In agreement with the Divisional Court, we would give the word its ordinary meaning of advantageous. It is entirely consistent with the framework of the legislation that a power of this sort should be exercised when a senior police officer considers it is advantageous to exercise the power for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
Interpreted in this way, sections 44 and 45 could not conflict with the provisions of the Articles of the ECHR. If those Articles were to be infringed it would be because of the manner of the exercise of the power, not its existence. Any possible infringement of the ECHR would depend on the circumstances in which the power that the sections give is exercised.’
The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales Lord Justice Buxton And Lady Justice Arden Dbe
 EWCA Civ 1067, Times 12-Aug-2004,  3 WLR 1144,  QB 388
Terrorism Act 2000 44, European Convention on Human Rights 5 8 10
England and Wales
Appeal from – Gillan and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis and Another Admn 31-Oct-2003
The applicants challenged by way of judicial review the way they had been stopped and searched under the Act. They attended a demonstration. The search revealed nothing suspicious. General authorisations for such searches had been issued under the . .
 EWHC 2545 (Admin), Times 05-Nov-03,  All ER (D) 526
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
 AC 1,  UKHL 8,  1 AC 1,  1 All ER 756, (1982) 75 Cr App R 16,  2 WLR 465
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Times 09-Jul-99, Gazette 28-Jul-99,  UKHL 33,  2 AC 115,  3 All ER 400,  3 WLR 328,  EMLR 689, (1999) 7 BHRC 411, (1999) 2 CHRLD 359
Cited – Engel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
5101/71, 5354/72, 5102/71, 5370/72,  ECHR 3, 5100/71, (1976) 1 EHRR 647
Cited – Guzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .
(1980 Series A No 39), 7367/76,  ECHR 5, (1980) 3 EHRR 333
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Times 25-May-01, Gazette 21-Jun-01,  3 All ER 433,  1 AC 532,  2 WLR 1622,  UKHL 26
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant had been in a bus taking her and others to an intended demonstration. The police feared breaches of the peace, and stopped the bus, and ordered the driver to return to London, and escorted it to ensure it did not stop.
Held: The . .
 QB 678,  EWCA Civ 1639, Times 13-Dec-04,  All ER 473
Cited – Austin and Saxby v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis QBD 23-Mar-2005
Towards the end of a substantial May Day demonstration on the streets of London, police surrounded about 3,000 people in Oxford Circus and did not allow them to leave for seven hours. The claimant who was present, but not involved in any of the . .
Times 14-Apr-05,  EWHC 480
Appeal from – Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .
 UKHL 12, Times 09-Mar-06,  2 AC 307,  UKHRR 740,  2 WLR 537,  2 Cr App R 36,  Crim LR 752,  HRLR 18, 21 BHRC 202,  Po LR 26,  4 All ER 1041
At Court of Appeal – Gillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-2008
The court set the questions to be answered later in response to the complaint as to the use of stop and search powers by the British police. . .
4158/05,  ECHR 521
At Court of Appeal – Gillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2009
(Admissibility and Summary) . .
 ECHR 755, 4158/05
At Court of Appeal – Gillan 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 . .
 ECHR 28, 4158/05, Times 15-Jan-10,  Crim LR 415, 28 BHRC 420, (2010) 50 EHRR 45
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.199609