header-logo header-logo

Terrorism

05 January 2012
Issue: 7495 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

CC v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 3316 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 160 (Dec)

The powers created by Sch 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were far reaching and, so far as the power to detain was concerned, affected the liberty of the person.

Accordingly, they had to be, in principle, strictly construed and it was incumbent on the officer to inform the person that he was being detained and why.

The fact that detention was not used in the vast majority of cases where a Sch 7 examination was considered necessary did not affect the correct construction of the powers since detention might be required. The only purpose of any examination had to be to determine whether a person was a terrorist within the meaning of s 40(1)(b). In principle, how and the extent to which a person appeared to be a terrorist could provide a lawful justification for the Sch 7 examination. However, all would depend on what the officers knew and why they had decided to use their powers.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll