I was reminded of this today, and it's definitely still worthy of comment! This is probably the most relevant part of the story:
"Officers will no longer be able to search individuals using section 44 powers. Instead they will have to rely on section 43 powers, which require officers to reasonably suspect the person to be a terrorist. And officers will only be able to use section 44 in relation to the searches of vehicles. I will only confirm these authorisations where they are considered to be necessary, and officers will only be able to use them when they have 'reasonable suspicion'."
This news is only to be welcomed, and you have to say hats off to the government for taking this step. Section 44 stops were certainly invidious from the human rights angle - whole parts of the Terrorism Act 2000 revealed the shocking illiberalism of New Labour at its worst - but police powers of this nature are also highly likely also have some direct, negative impacts in terms of the position of the police in the community and, in the long run, the ability of the police to do its job.
Put simply, the use of powers such as Section 44 will in many cases be experienced as profoundly unjust by those members of the public involved (the vast majority of those stopped under the act, remember, had done nothing wrong). Being stopped by the police under any circumstance is, potentially, bad enough. Why have they stopped me (again, which is the woeful experience of many people from ethnic minority groups)? I've done nothing wrong! But under normal conditions police officers can attempt to explain why the stop took place, what their grounds for suspicion were, why they felt it was necessary to take action. If no grounds are needed, this makes explanations much more difficult, if not impossible. In most cases the use of Section 44 must have boiled down to 'because I felt like it' or 'because you don't look right' - what other criteria would there be for making a stop under this legislation rather than under the other powers police have as their disposal?
Section 44 made lawful activity in public places subject to the whim of police officers, removed a vital check on the behaviour of the police, and made the demonstration of procedural fairness on the part of the police much more difficult, not least because this widely used legislation was in and of itself deeply unfair. It must have harmed the relationship between the police and people from communities across the country, imperilling the cooperation police have to have in order to function effectively.
Obviously the above runs the risk of white-washing 'normal' police stop and search practise, which is far from perfect in many many ways. But Section 44 really pushed the envelope in a wholly undesirable direction. And as far as I'm aware it proved almost entirely ineffective at actually catching any terrorists - the arrest rate (for all offences) for Section 44 stops was 0.5% in 2009/10. The conviction rate must have been miniscule.
But I think there is a pretty big silver lining to all this, quite aside from Theresa May's announcement. It is a perfect demonstration of the ways in which good police practice in ethical and normative terms - here, using stop and search powers sparingly, in situations where good reason is needed and reasons are explained to the people stopped - coincide with what the public consistently say they want the police: fairness, neutrality, respect and the demonstration of proper procedure. Legislation should be framed to encourage these behaviours not, as Section 44 did, discourage them.
No comments:
Post a Comment