Cases

Gillan & Quinton v UK

Held

The powers under ss.44-45 were neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. They were not therefore “in accordance with the law”, in violation of Article 8:

(1) There was no requirement at the authorisation stage that the stop and search be considered “necessary” and no assessment of the proportionality of the measure.

(2) The breadth of the discretion conferred on the individual police officer was unacceptable. The sole proviso was that the search be carried out for the purpose of looking for articles which could be used in connection with terrorism, with no requirement to demonstrate the existence of any reasonable suspicion. There was a clear risk of arbitrariness and discrimination.

(3) The availability of judicial review or an action in damages was not an adequate safeguard. It was likely to be difficult if not impossible to prove that the power was improperly exercised by a police officer.

Also