Section 44 ruled illegal

I will not be puting money on the situation on the ground anytime soon.
 
I was just about to post this myself. I wonder if this will have any effect on the stopping of photographers?!
 
I'd like to think it will have a fairly big impact on the stopping of photographers and others, but I doubt it will

Hugh
 
jerry12953 said:
its better than a poke in the goolies with a sharp stick.......
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on whether you are into masochism :thinking:

But good news, and I think it will make a difference on the ground. The intense media attention on this issue has probably also helped...
 
I think if the police now try to use powers which have been ruled illegal then they themselves are committing an illegal act and can be held accountable - and sued - in this case for breaching the Human Rights of the person they stop.
 
boyfalldown said:
I'd like to think it will have a fairly big impact on the stopping of photographers and others, but I doubt it will

Hugh
Click to expand...

:agree:

If the police want to stop a photographer there are other reasons they can use -remember the Met claiming photographing their officers/vehicles was a breach of copyright? :lol:
 
petersmart said:
I think if the police now try to use powers which have been ruled illegal then they themselves are committing an illegal act and can be held accountable - and sued - in this case for breaching the Human Rights of the person they stop.
Click to expand...

No, all it means is there is case law now ruling this illegal... I think you will find it will take more than one case before the Home Office back down.

However, the truly sad thing out of all of this is that a proper anti-terrorist measure has been crushed because the stupid police chose to use it against peaceful anti-arms trade protestors and photographers.

Had they not been so damned willy-nilly with it, it would have remained a useful tool for the prevention of terrorism.

Muppets.
 
To throw a spanner in the works though, it's good for innocent photographers...

But could Mr terrorist now get away with stuff because the police do not have the powers

(ok has section 44 ever been used on someone who wasnt a photographer)
 
You're right. There isn't. It's the end of the line as far as legal options go.

The only way round it is for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
 
Quotes of interest from the ECHR Registry's press release:
  • 'The applicants complained that the use of the section 44 power to stop and search each of them breached their rights under Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association)'.
  • 'In conclusion, the Court considered that the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act 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'.
  • 'Given the finding above, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Articles 5, 10 and 11'.

So the individual's rights under Articles 5, 10 and 11 remain to be tested in the light of the present legislation and whatever amendment the Government may or may not make.
 
Crazy Dino said:
To throw a spanner in the works though, it's good for innocent photographers...

But could Mr terrorist now get away with stuff because the police do not have the powers

(ok has section 44 ever been used on someone who wasnt a photographer)
Click to expand...

They still have s43 plus the stop and search powers they had before the terrorist act. They have to have grounds for stopping and searching under these.
With s44 they did not have to have any reason, just being in a designated area was enough.
 
Cameraman said:
no doubt they'll appeal and win
Click to expand...
I think that you'll find that there is no appeal against a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. They are the final Court of Appeal after the UK's own Courts. To quote Wiki:
'Any decision of the Court is binding on the member states and must be complied with, except if it consists of an advisory opinion.'​

... but note also that:
'It is the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to supervise the execution of Court judgments. This body cannot force states to comply, and the ultimate sanction for non-compliance is expulsion from the Council of Europe.'​

In case anyone gets confused this is NOT the European Union at work. It is a Court established under the European Convention on Human Rights (a convention adopted by the Council of Europe). The UK signed up to the Council of Europe at its outset in 1949 as a party to the Treaty of London long before we joined in with the other European Treaties that are now the basis for the European Union.
 
PickleB said:
I think that you'll find that there is no appeal against a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. They are the final Court of Appeal after the UK's own Courts. To quote Wiki:
'Any decision of the Court is binding on the member states and must be complied with, except if it consists of an advisory opinion.'​

... but note also that:
'It is the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to supervise the execution of Court judgments. This body cannot force states to comply, and the ultimate sanction for non-compliance is expulsion from the Council of Europe.'​

In case anyone gets confused this is NOT the European Union at work. It is a Court established under the European Convention on Human Rights (a convention adopted by the Council of Europe). The UK signed up to the Council of Europe at its outset in 1949 as a party to the Treaty of London long before we joined in with the other European Treaties that are now the basis for the European Union.
Click to expand...

Indeed - as as delighted as I am with this judgement it's depressing to remember that ECHR judgements are merely persuasive. Only European Court of Justice judgements are binding.

As ever, common sense from Henry Porter
 
Have to wait and see what happens, it normally takes a little while for the police and home office to decide on how to proceed, I assume it will be business as usual for them for the time being
 
onomatopoeia said:
There is, referral to the Grand Chamber. It very rarely accepts referrals.
Click to expand...
... and I too stand corrected :notworthy: - a judgment of a Chamber of the ECHR may not be the end of the matter.

The ECHR's own web-site explains that:
'Within three months of delivery of the judgment of a Chamber, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber if it raises a serious question of interpretation or application or a serious issue of general importance.'​

It goes on to say:
'If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber renders its decision on the case in the form of a judgment. The Grand Chamber decides by a majority vote and its judgments are final.'​
and
'All final judgments of the Court are binding on the respondent States concerned.'​

If a final judgment (from the Chamber or the Grand Chamber) goes against the UK and the Government fails to act upon it, I don't think that there are any effective sanctions that might be imposed. Does anyone know about this, please? :help:

However, I understand that the judgment would set a precedent that can then be relied upon in the UK Courts. Again, can anyone confirm or deny this, please? :help:

In any case it will be interesting to see how the Government frames its request for a referral to the Grand Chamber. At the moment they 'are considering the judgment and will seek to appeal'. How that works I'm not too sure. Wouldn't you have to have finished your considerations before deciding you have grounds or cause to appeal? Perhaps it's just politics? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top