I will no doubt be accused by some of being hopelessly naive for holding this opinion, but it is the opinion I hold. This latest police-harass-photographer scandal has reminded the world’s media that Britain has introduced some pretty draconian legislation in recent years. The suggestion that the officer involved in harassing a journalist who was taking pics of St. Paul’s Cathedral did not act unlawfully is quite worrying.
All this has happened before. Remember the “sus” laws? I don’t, I’m far too young. These gave the police powers to go around causing misery to people they didn’t like. In the bad old days before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), large sections of society felt like they were being treated poorly by the authorities. We all know what the culmination of that was. PACE limited police powers to search people, crucially to situations where the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person might be in possession of certain listed items (e.g. prohibited items, fireworks, etc.). There is an equivalent power for drugs searches.
By and large, the PACE restrictions are A Good Thing because they strike a balance between the power to search (necessary in the battle to maintain peace on the streets) and the knowledge that that power can be challenged if someone feels they have been searched unfairly. This is a very important accountability issue. If you have ever been searched you will have been told why you are being searched and you should have been given one of those “receipts” which should outline the grounds for the search and the power used.
Step forward the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 43 gives a police officer the power to search someone who he “reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist”. Sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it? Your behaviour or location in an area at a particular time or appearance leads an officer to think you might be planning to blow something up so he has the power to find out whether you are about to blow something up. I can’t argue against that.
Section 44 gives the power to an officer to stop and search a person or vehicle for no other reason than that a senior officer has generally authorised searches in that area. And that is a pretty wide-ranging power. It means that any officer in that area can search any person he pleases without breaking the law.
I have no particular objection to being searched if I have brought attention to myself for some reason. I was once searched by police because I was carrying some record cases and the officer told me that similar ones had been stolen nearby. Fair dues. But when officers start getting uppity with people taking photos of London’s landmarks then you know things have gone wrong. Taking a photo in a public place is not against the law. Taking a photo of a key public building does not make you a terrorist.
I generally give the police the benefit of the doubt when they hit the headlines. I know a few officers socially and they are intelligent professional people not power hungry thugs. But it only takes one officer to do something so brainless as to harass someone who isn’t doing any harm to bring the whole system into disrepute. My Met buddy tells me that they have been told not to go around using S44 powers without good reason. It seems to me that there is never a good reason. If an officer has grounds then he can use S43. If not he should stay well away.
Britain is not a “police state” but bits of egregious legislation like Section 44 (and there are plenty of nasty morsels knocking around) are quite likely to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the law abiding majority. If the police are going to put people’s backs up by using unnecessary powers unnecessarily then they are just going to alienate the very people who might otherwise help them put real miscreants behind bars.
The next government must have a wholesale review of the spaghetti of police legislation. A new PACE, perhaps?



RSS - Posts