Stopped and searched in the best possible taste

According to the Times, security is being stepped up in advance of next month’s G20 summit in East London. The fear is that, instead of attacking the actual venue, which is quite easily defendable, protesters will opt for soft targets such as hotels and public buildings.

This puts yesterday’s incident into perspective. Ros and I were heading to the London Regional Conference when, at Westminster station, I was called over by a British Transport Police officer. He courteously explained that he and his colleague were undertaking stop and search checks on individuals, and asked if their rather cute springer spaniel could check the small suitcase I was dragging. Naturally, I had no objection, placed the suitcase on the floor and stood back whilst the dog did its work.

I had assumed that the bag was being checked for drugs or explosives, although the rationale for stopping me wasn’t made entirely clear. I was asked whether or not the bag was mine, and had to acknowledge that it was Ros’s. They then took some details from her - name, address and the like - before explaining to us that the stop and search had been conducted under the auspices of Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. A copy of the report was supplied, Ros put it in her handbag and we continued on our way.

I might have thought no more about it until this morning, when I read the document and, in particular, the back of it, which explains what should happen. Apparently, I should have been told why I was being stopped, and the relevant legislation quoted. I’m not going to get excited about it, and I’m confident that the officers had no malicious intent – most people don’t care about the legislative background, and are, like me, happy to cooperate with the police in the pursuit of their legitimate business, i.e. protecting us from criminals and terrorists. However, we all have a duty to ensure that those exercising power are held to account and, as we might see a lot of this over the coming weeks, here’s the legislation…

(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.

Section 45 (1) explains that suspicion is not required in order to carry out such searches…

1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)—

(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and

(b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.

Authorisation must be given, in London at least, by an officer at Commander level or above. So, clearly, a senior officer has deemed it necessary to so authorise, which is where the story from the Times picks up…

Naturally, you are protected by statute from inappropriate application of this legislation. Given that many of you reading this will be keen to ensure that your rights aren’t taken from you unduly, here is Liberty’s advice on what those rights are…