header-logo header-logo

15 July 2010
Issue: 7426 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Stop & search halted

Section 44 stopped in its tracks by court ruling

The government has suspended the “stop and search” powers of s 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Section 44 allowed assistant chief constables to secretly designate areas for stop and search, without suspicion by a police constable. Designations lasted 28 days but have been made on a rolling basis for years at a time.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in January that s 44 violates the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Art 8, in Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 28.

The case arose from an arms fair in the Docklands area of East London in September 2003 where journalists and peace protestors were subject to stop and search by police. A challenge revealed that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion on a rolling basis since 2001.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, says: “Liberty welcomes the end of the infamous s 44 stop and search power that criminalised and alienated more people than it ever protected. We argued against it for ten years and spent the last seven challenging it all the way to the Court of Human Rights.”

Law Society President Robert Heslett says: “Police powers must be proportionate and respect fundamental human rights, otherwise they are open to abuse and can risk creating disrespect of the police among law-abiding citizens.”

Announcing the new plans, Home Secretary Theresa May said: “To comply with the judgment, but avoid pre-empting the review of counter-terrorism legislation, I have decided to introduce interim guidelines for the police. I am therefore changing the test for authorisation for the use of s 44 powers from requiring a search to be ‘expedient’ for the prevention of terrorism, to the stricter test of it being ‘necessary’ for that purpose.”

 

Issue: 7426 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll