Stop-Search Methods Used by the UK Police - Essay Example

The question of who gets stop-searched by the police has dominated debate, but the more important questions concern how people get stop-searched, andwhether stop-search does more harm than good." Introduction The section 44 gives power to the law enforcement agencies to randomly and indiscriminately halt and search individuals, even without having any ‘reasonable grounds’ for suspicion. The Terrorism Act 2000, effective on 19th February 2001, allowed senior ranking police officers, under Section 44, to create certain “authorisation” areas in particular geographical location (under directives from UK Home Secretary). These locations are marked as ‘sensitive zones’ and hence risky to public and national security being likely targets for terror attack. Within these ‘sensitive’ zones, the senior police officials were given the power to search any individual even without grounds for reasonable suspicion and seize materials allegedly used for terrorism, whether or not there are any actual grounds for believing that the materials were actually present, or used for terror acts. The law enforcement agencies are also under no obligations to justify their search action and the Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) are vested with this special power, when there is a uniformed police officer accompanying them. The stop and search powers were supported by House of Lords in R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis in 2006.1 Due to high instances of racial profiling in the process of stop and search, UK police have faced widespread criticisms for their methods used, with rising concerns amongst human rights activists and political circles on “racial profiling” leading to demands and proposal to restrain UK police from conducting the stop or search with racial bias. Various levels of scholarly, policy and legal, analyses have been conducted, with focus on stop and search and its application and distribution across varying social groups (different ethnic, religious and racial minorities).2 In the studies related to stop and search, the leading question that has taken the limelight is who gets searched, but the more important questions that have been often been neglected concern how people get stop-searched, and whether stop-search does more harm than good. This article will explore the impacts of stop and search and the methods used, and study to see whether it is a more important aspect in this entire issue, than focusing only on who is stopped and searched. Discussion The power to Stop and search The power to stop and search in section 44 under UK Terrorism Act 2000 allows any uniformed police officer to stop any individual (a pedestrian) or a vehicle located within the ‘sensitive zones.’ Section 44 has resulted due to various extensions to UK Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 made applicable through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the UK Prevention of Terrorism Act 1996. UK parliament implemented the measures were implemented by the UK parliament as responses to the bombings in London by the Irish Republican Army in 1992, 1993 and 1996 (in Docklands). The UK government contended that the newly established powers provided a chance to repress the terror acts and protect the citizens. The Section 44 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000 now states: 1. An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search — (a) The vehicle; (b) The driver of the vehicle; (c) A passenger in the vehicle; (d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger. 2. An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search — (a) the pedestrian; (b) anything carried by him. 3. An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism. 4. An authorisation may be given — (a) … by a member of that Constabulary for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable. 5. If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.3 Under this stop and search, in England and Wales, as per head population count (from 1995 onward), the number of people from Asian community that have been stopped and searched is persistently 1.5 to 2.5 times more than the white people, while for black ethnic minorities the figures are 4 and 8 times more than the white people.4 Fig 1: Published statistics (though far incomplete), show that from 2000 onward there are greater number of stop and searches conducted by UK police with a “disproportionate impact on Asian ethnic minorities.”5 Fig 2a: Disproportionality ratios, 2001/02 to 2007/08, England and Wales 6 Fig 2b: Stop and search rates, disproportionality ratios and excess stops and searches in England and Wales, 2007/08 7 The above figures quite clearly indicate that there is racial disproportionality in stop and search cases in UK, while also indicating the depth of researches that have primarily focused on recording various instances of racial/minority abuse under section 44. However, these are mere statistical data or theoretical information that only reflects the fact that minorities are being stopped and searched more often than the whites. To understand the complex issue of terrorism and counter terror strategies and their impacts on society, one must however go to the roots, and understand how UK citizens are actually stopped and searched (the methods used), and whether stop-search does more harm than good. If studies reveal that methods used during stop and search are not correct, or if stop-search actually results in more harm, then one can demand for UK parliament to review the law and ask for amendments. Simply focusing on the statistical data on who is being stopped and searched, does not indicate whether communities are actually undergoing any harm, they merely show that certain sections are being targeted. To understand actual effects of the law (beneficial or harmful) one must necessarily study in details the impacts of stop-search methods, and seek whether they produce good or harmful results on the community as a whole. Stop-search methods used by UK police Under the powers provided in Terrorism Act 2000 (s 44), the UK police have conducted 29,407 ‘stop and search’ within one year (October 2003 - September 2004).8 This ‘stop and search’ increased to a whopping 256,026 accounts in just England and Wales, during the period April 2008 - March 2009. Amongst the people stopped and searched only 1,452 of them resulted in actual arrests (less than 0.6% of the total people stopped and searched), there were also a large number of the arrests made for offenses with no relation to terrorism.9 In November 2009, the Home Office figures showed 36,189 accounts of ‘stop and search’ incidences, a 37% fall in usage of section 44 in the first quarter of 2009-10. However, the figures are still high, and almost equivalent to 398 individuals being stopped daily during April, May and June 2009.10 The conditions set for imposing section 44 are so vast in scope that the act is usable almost against anyone and for anything. Increasingly the anti-terror measures are being used to obstruct legal demonstrations and protests of activists and media workers. In this regards, the chairperson of the British Press Photographers’ Association (BPPA), Jeff Moore stated that section 44 is “an extremely poor piece of legislation that creates an enormous amount of confusion, both among the public and the police officers that use it.”11 In 2008, even Mr Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, stated that Terrorism Act 2000 failed to delineate the police powers, and acknowledged that officers lacked training on how to apply new laws correctly, while senior officers often felt "exasperated, depressed and embarrassed" by the routine misuse of section 44 by their juniors, especially on press.12 One such incident occurred when in 2008, photojournalist Jess Hurd, was detained for nearly an hour by the police as she was trying to cover a wedding in London. In her complaint, she stated that while the police forcibly removed the camera they informed her that, “we can do anything under the Terrorism Act… [Moreover] she could not use any footage of the police car or police officers and that if she did there would be ‘severe penalties’.”13 Another example of misuse of section 44 involved the stopping of Jeff Overs (a BBC photographer) from clicking photos of the St Paul’s Cathedral in 2009.14 Another case was filed in September 2003 by Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan who faced ‘stop and search’ under police command while trying to proceed towards a public protest gathering in London’s Docklands, and even after showing a press card, Quinton was banned from filming the proceedings.15 In the ECHR ruling that followed the case hearing, a panel comprising of seven judges reviewed the entire situation and ruled that any form of public search, without valid reasons for suspicion, equates to breach of the right privacy.16 Furthermore, the judges ruled that the public nature of the search, might lead to exposure of one’s personal information to general view, and add to compounding of the gravity of the situation owing to the public embarrassment of the individual being searched.17 Here the ECHR judgment criticises not only the application of the anti-terrorism measures, but their process of authorised, by the UK Parliament and the courts that are failing to effectively monitor and prevent misuse of the laws. The ECHR Court also criticised the degree of autonomic powers given to police officers and the methods used for conducting ‘stop and search,’ and expressed concerns over that fact that such officers without adequate training are being allowed to tackle complex issues as terrorism, leading to arbitrariness in the powers granted to UK police.18 Arrests under the section 44, related to non-terrorist activities are seen to be high, and while it is understood that some cases there are genuinely related to drugs or possession of illegal weapons, which would justify police action, there is always the danger of inappropriate use of the vested special powers. This was quite evident when 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang, a party worker, was first dismissed from 2005 annual conference of the Labour Party after he chivvied Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary) and later under s. 44 was stopped from entering the venue.19 The same year we find the police again using s 44 to stop a woman for walking in Dundee on a cycle-path.20 Thus, here it is obvious that are clear instances of abuse in the methods used by the police under section 44 of the terrorism act 2000 (without actually focusing on the racial aspect of the people stopped). These incidents are not mere statistical data that does not only focus on who is being stopped and searched, but reveal the wrong methods used while implementing the terror law. This provides a stronger basis for demanding that the government review section 44, bring in amendments so that it can effectively monitor the entire process, and prevent abuse. Effects of stop and search Recent researches on the topic of justice and psychology (used for presenting data, owing to serious lack of studies on the impacts of stop and search) has clearly revealed that issues of equality and fairness form to be the core in an individual’s comprehension of the process as how a country’s criminal justice system (including encounter with police) should function.21 Citizens tend to view procedural fairness through neutral governing bodies, interactive voice given to each individual citizen, open and dignified handling of any person, and the establishment of mutual faith and trust.22 The mishandling of stop and search and the various processes that may cause it like bias, racial profiling, lack of training or knowledge, or even an insensitive form of policing, lead to chances that a there may be a negative impact on an individual’s or a community’s psychology.23 Another aspect found in some of the studies in criminal justice reveals that the net effect of police contact on the common public is harmful or negative, and trust levels towards the law enforcement agencies for those who have had recent contacts with police tend to much lower.24 Furthermore, police contacts with unsatisfactory or poor outcomes also tend to create harmful effects on an individual or the community, while public initiated contacts have less negative impacts than police-initiated ones (as in stop and search where often an individual stopped and searched may become socially isolated).25 Thus, in stop and search activity (which is a police initiated contact) if the outcome is poor or even unsatisfactory it will tend to negatively affect an individual or the society/community as a whole. In a survey conducted by Walker et al. in 2009 it was seen while some respondents felt positive about the stop and search law and the procedures followed by UK police in implementing it, on an average the trust regarding fair treatment were low amongst those stopped and searched, than those that had not faced the ordeal.26 Conclusion Various researches on criminal justice tend to suggest that unsatisfactory experiences with the police tend to create a lacuna as regards trust and wherewithal for cooperation. So one can assume (there is serious lack of data on impacts of stop and search) that when the police use illegal methods while conducting stop and search activities (especially when biased), the results are more likely to be harmful for an individual or the community as the whole. A mere focus on racial profiling of stop-search (who is being stopped) tends to make the data rather too statistical, without actually trying to locate the main issues within the problem. With a greater focus on methods used by UK police in stop-search activities, and the impacts (psychological) of stop-search on an individual or the community as a whole, would make it easier to diagnose the actual reasons behind the problem, and in turn find a better solution. References Bradford, B., Jackson, J. and Stanko, E. Contact and confidence: Revisiting asymmetry in the impact of encounters with the police. Policing and Society 19(1): 20-46, (2009). Davenport, J. BBC man in terror quiz for photographing St Pauls sunset, London Evening Standard, 2009, retrieved from http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23776068-bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do [Accessed 22nd December 2011] Equality and Human Rights Commission. Stop and think: A critical review of the use of stop and search powers in England and Wales, 2010, retrieved from,  http://equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/raceinbritain/ehrc_stop_and_search_report.pdf [accessed 23rd December 2011] Fraser, C., Are The Police Misusing Stop and Search? BBC Online, 23 October 2005, Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4365572.stm [Accessed 22nd December 2011] Gillan And Quinton v. The United Kingdom, [2010], 4158/05, retrieved from http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/jan/echr-judgment-gillan-quinton.pdf [accessed on 22nd December 2011] Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2008/09, Police Powers and Procedures 2008/09, 15th April 2010, retrieved from http://www.neighbourhoodwatch.net/images/resources/hosb0610.pdf [Accessed 23rd December 2011] Hughes, M., Taylor, J., and Mendelsohn, T. Photographers snap over use of Section 44 by police officers, The Independent, 2009, retrieved from, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-snap-over-use-of-section-44-by-police-officers-1833839.html [accessed 21st December 2011] Hughes, M., Taylor, J. Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws, The Independent, 2009, retrieved from, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-uturn-on-photographers-and-antiterror-laws-1834626.html [accessed 20th December 2011] Jones, S. Heckler, 82, Wins Apology from Labour. The Guardian (London), 29th September 2005. Laurent, O. Photojournalist files complaint after Terrorism Act stop. British journal of photography, 2008, retrieved from, http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1647630/photojournalist-files-complaint-terrorism-act-stop [accessed 20th December 2011] Lister, D. Two Wheels: Good. Two Legs: Terrorist Suspect. The Times, 17th October 2005. R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12. Roberts, J., and Hough, M. Understanding public attitudes to criminal justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2005. Terrorism Act 2000, Section 44, Power to Stop and Search, legislation.go.uk, retrieved from, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/V/crossheading/power-to-stop-and-search [Accessed 22nd December 2011] Tyler, T. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375-400, 2006. Waddington, P., Stenson, K., and Don, D. In Proportion: Race and Police Stop and Search, British Journal of Criminology, 44, 889- 914, 2004. Walker, A., Flatley, J., Kershaw, C. and Moon, D. Crime in England and Wales 2008/09. London: Home Office, 2009. Walker, C. Know Thine Enemy as Thyself’: Discerning Friend from Foe under Anti- Terrorism Laws, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2008, 275- 301. Read More