ECHR rules s44 Terrorism Act stop and search illegal!

In a case with serious implications for the use of the Terrorism Act 2000, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled in the case of Gillan and Quinton v UK that the use of stop and search powers under s44 Terrorism Act 2000 is illegal.

The rumour is that the Metropolitan Police have been told to suspend the use of such searches pending further guidance from the government, which may have to amend or repeal the existing law.

The judgment referred to the lack of controls over how the powers are used, that no reasonable suspicion is required, and statistics showing that the power is disproportionately used against black and asian males. Also, since the Act was introduced, the total of searches recorded by the Ministry of Justice went from 33,177 to 117,278.

A serious blow for government policy on terrorism. Guardian article here.

DNA database - victory for our rights, or foolish lefty hand-wringing?

Looks like the government have dropped plans to retain the DNA data
of innocent people on their database for between 6 and 12 years.

This follows a European Court of Human Rights ruling that keeping such data indefinitely was unlawful in the case of S and Marper v UK (2008).

Current developments are an interesting insight into the passage of a bill through parliament (which we will look at next year as part of Sources of Law) as the government is having to make concessions to its opponents in order to get the majority of the Policing and Crime Bill past Parliament.

Do you think that such data should be kept on people or not, and why? Are we striking the right balance between police powers and civil liberties?

Comments please...

Riz Ahmed on liberty

Is he right?

Government can fix a prisoner's release date, not the courts!

So says this story from the Times, reporting the case of R (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice (2009). However one of the Law Lords, Lord Phillips (the Lord Chief Justice, no less), disagreed.

Article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that a detained person has the right to have the lawfulness of that detention determined by a court.

Despite this the Court ruled that the executive (in the shape of the Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, pictured) can decide the release date of a prisoner if it wants to.

Read the full judgment here.

Two questions:

1. Can this be argued to be contrary to the idea of separation of powers?
2. Might the Secretary of State for Justice take decisions in a politically biased way?

Everybody...

New video here from Amnesty International on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Good gallery about the making of it here as well - lots of famous actors involved including Emilia Fox (pictured).