Tuesday, 12 January 2010

++Section 44 Stop and Search Illegal ++

OH "earning" £30,399 on November 5th, courtesy of IngSoc

Oh joy. The harrassment of choice of our friendly Police "service" has just been found illegal under European Human Rights Legislation.

The government's powers under the Terrorism Act to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion are illegal, a European court has ruled.

The European Court of Human Rights was giving its ruling in a case involving two people stopped near an arms fair in London in 2003.

It said the pair's right to respect for a private and family life under human rights laws had been violated.

It awarded them 33,850 euros (£30,399) in compensation.

The court said the stop and search powers were "not sufficiently circumscribed" and there were not "adequate legal safeguards against abuse".

In 2008,
  • Number of people stopped nationwide by British Transport Police using s 44: 160,000
  • Number of people stopped in London by the Metropolitan Police using s. 44: 200,000
  • Number of people amongst the 360,000 stopped under s. 44 and found to have any terrorist material or links: 0
360,000 x £30,399 = £109,436,640,000.38p (109 BILLION)

Time to get a claim in, methinks. Chicken Dinners all round.



Climate Scientologist said...

War is Peace, etc....

How the big freeze fits theories of global warming

You'd be forgiven for thinking that the BBC seem to have an agenda to push 'climate change' at every opportunity.

Or is it just my suspicious mind ?

Jock Coats said...

Brilliant news. I know one of the two litigants - I'll claim my chicken dinner off him, though I suspect he's a vegan...:-)

Mat said...

I predict that this will have no effect whatsoever.

See the rulings on DNA retention, and the realities of how the fuzz treat DNA.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Fantastic. Who are we getting to handle the class action suit?

strongholdbarricades said...

on top of news that the police are losing the initiative


Define crime, define areas

So will the police now be overwhelmed by those members of the public who thought that reporting crime to the police was simply a waste of time?

williamsjk said...

Great work on the maths there - hope you don't mind me quoting your work in my post.

matapult said...

And they can't find 2 million to pay B-Wing T.A. soldiers. That would be ridiculous!

Anonymous said...


418 said...

Here's the judgment in full: hand it to your solicitor if you're going to make a claim.

Harri said...

360,000 x £30,399 = £109,436,640,000.38p (109 BILLION)

ACPO and it's shareholders are going to be tad pissed !

Harri again said...

Harri said...
360,000 x £30,399 = £109,436,640,000.38p (109 BILLION)

ACPO and it's shareholders are going to be a tad pissed !

12 January 2010 15:14

Thats better

Dick the Prick said...

Ha ha ha - wankers!

418 said...

Wankers indeed.

From the judgment: "The Ministry of Justice recorded a total of 33,177 searches in 2004/5, 44,545 in 2005/6, 37,000 in 2006/7 and 117,278 in 2007/8 (see paragraphs 44-46 above). In his Report into the operation of the Act in 2007, Lord Carlile noted that while arrests for other crimes had followed searches under section 44, none of the many thousands of searches had ever related to a terrorism offence; in his 2008 Report Lord Carlile noted that examples of poor and unnecessary use of section 44 abounded, there being evidence of cases where the person stopped was so obviously far from any known terrorism profile that, realistically, there was not the slightest possibility of him/her being a terrorist, and no other feature to justify the stop."

Repeat: "... none of the many thousands of searches had ever related to a terrorism offence ..."

GCooper said...

The Ministry of Justice'!

Makes us sound like some fascist banana republic.

Oh, but wait...

bofl said...

just like grdnon boron- plod make it up as they go along.......

George Monsoon said...

I don't wish to piss on your bonfire (punn intended)but there is no way that people will be allowed to sue. This will be halted very VERY quickly.

AngryDave said...

S.44 was never about terrorism. It was about getting stop search back in through the back door after all the fuss with the Steven Lawrence case. It also had the added benifit of making the public feel better when they tell them how many people have been stopped while 'looking for terrorists'.
Instead, it has been abused to disrupt and villify, and murder those who want to fulfill their right to a peaceful protest against a corrupt government.
While the trustafarian rent-a-mob run riot, literaly sometimes.

I doubt much will actualy change, because the government propaganda machine, a.k.a the bbc, will be doing it's best to supress it.

418 said...

@George Monsoon

In fact the government here will drag its feet as it did following the ECHR judgment in S & Marper v. UK on the retention of innocents' DNA.

But in the end the UK is treaty-bound to comply unless it is thinking of renegotiating the treaty which would take a very, very long time: Article 46 provides that
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution."

Perhaps it would be quicker for the UK to tear the treaty up: George, is that what you had in mind?!? Do you know something we don't about this?

Meanwhile, people should sue: there is a link to the full judgment at the foot of this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal

El-Kevo said...

I could laugh and cry.

A bad law no doubt. But a supra-national entity telling us what laws we can and cannot have ?

I still can't get used to this.

Ron Broxted said...

I wish to publicly state I am joining Al-Mujahiroun and Islam4UK. ACAB/ASAB. Along with the Rusty Sheriffs Badge Abusers Club in Brighton. The Belfast Cock Swallowers Gay Collective (Belfast Branch) The Animal Abusers Club,(Huntingdon Branch) and the I Think Rod Liddle Would Look Great in Pink Speedo's Appreciation Society..........Oooh matron. Almost forgot the TUG Must Die Screaming Club. Must dash... feel a wank cumming on continued page 79.

418 said...


Yeah, it's tough and the judges were: Nicolas Bratza, Giovanni Bonello, Ljiljana Mijović, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Nebojša Vučinic.

The UK government has only itself to blame: it should never have put itself in this position in the first place.

What seems plain is that the UK cannot govern itself satisfactorily; that's why we have Johnny Foreigner doing it for us in the last resort. That is Johnny Foreigner who may himself remember the Stasi, the Securitate and the other organs; who may distrust governments enough from personal experience to recognize the foolishness of the saying, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"; who may remember the day when the UK was internationally regarded as a bulwark of freedom and democracy rather than the international disgrace and embarrassment the UK has become, getting itself dragged through the court over and over again like this.

Rant finished, thank you.

Nick said...

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 33,850 (thirty-three thousand eight hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

in respect of costs and expenses

My view is that is legal expenses.

So you're not going to get a penny from the Bastards, just the lawyers.

Perhaps you should sign up with Cherie Blair

Anonymous said...

You cannot claim yours OH.
You are a FREEMAN remember!

Membership has its rewards...

Old Holborn said...

You have a lot to learn about lawyers.

My favourite QC has just offered me 50/50 on the costs

418 said...

Yes, and mine said she would do it on a no-win, no-fee basis.

Anyway, the claimants/plaintiffs in the ECtHR case only asked for £500 compo: more symbolic than anything else. When claiming, you should ask for a lot more compo now that the principle has been established.

Captain Haddock said...

Rather than suing a Police Force, would an easier option here be to sue the individual Officer ?

As I understand it, the Officer conducting a Stop/Search under S44 has to give the person searched a Search slip with their details on it ..

I can see Chief Constables rowing for the shore in their dozens (just like they did over H&S) & leaving the person who carried out the search to fend for themselves .. and if that happens .. searches under S44 will evaporate like mist on a sunny morning ..

bofl said...

In 'Where There Is Greed' a fantasy novel written by Grodnon Brown he censured the erosion of civil liberties under the Conservatives, complaining that “information on individuals is now compiled and held on an unprecedented scale” and that “the right of assembly and the right to protest have been curtailed in ways that were not contemplated under any other post war Conservative administration”. 1987...

total hoon.

uk-world leaders in stasi tactics!

Anonymous said...

Colouring books were among the items police removed in searches


Anonymous said...


The court heard T (aged eleven) was left "crying and shaking" after a female officer said he had to be searched.

He feared he would "go to prison" because he had stickers in his bag

Captain Haddock said...

"Colouring books were among the items police removed in searches" ..

Ah .. but to be fair, they only did that so's to give the Chief Constable, his Staff Officer & the other drones at Force HQ something constructive to do .. as they'd already used up this year's allocation of Diversity seminars & were becoming noisy and fractious ..

SS S44 said...

OH, some thoughts from me on this. I was stopped and searched under section 44 in a designated area a few years ago. The plain clothes offer who stopped and searched me (in public) lied on the form. That lie was the "grounds for suspicion" that he wrote. A lie and not true. How I can prove this is next too impossible. However I do have photos (as I was taking photos just before the S&S S44). These are date & time stamped. If I wasn't a risk at that time how come I suddenly became a risk a few minutes later. Hence his lie is highlighted. My photos even show that I wasn't doing what he said when he said. They just wished to stop me going about my business. I was lied to, also, about the fact that I had to provide my name and address. If not then he would just copy them from my credit cards if any found on my person.

However in my case the police would argue that it was a S&S under S44 with grounds. So does this ruling apply in my case? Yes I would like to sue them and get lots. Who wouldn't!?


I think in many cases the police lie on the forms putting down any reason for grounds for suspicion, rather than leave it blank.

"The European judges said the power to search a person's clothing and belongings in public included an element of humiliation and embarrassment which was a clear interference with the right to privacy."

So OH, though I'm a fan of you and your work and cause, you didn't take your face mask off on Nov 5th 2008 when you and the others were S&S under S44...did you? Hence the police would argue that you were NOT publicly caused "humiliation and embarrassment" wouldn't they?

Just wondered?

Like you, I plan on suing if I can.

Hope that you reply.
Many the force be truly with us in 2010. It will be an interesting year especially for freemen and "return no contract"

Ron Broxted said...

I wish I was a policeman I would follow Rod Liddle stop him and strip search him real slow savouring every moment......Ooooh matron. I would then tell him to kneel down a close his eyes whilst I gave him a breath test. I would then put my tinky winky in his fat stupid face and tell him if he wanted to get off to keep sucking till I shouted out there she blows. Anyone find Rod Liddle a hunk?

Anonymous said...

No Ron.

Back on topic;


spark up said...

i continually receive the attention of 'policemen'.

will i get a banned post following my name if i mention that jocelyn jee esien and her associates have been illegally eavesdropping on my conversations via the mic on my mobile phone?

so how much did the cia pay you to spy on me jocelyn?

and what precisely is the nature of your relationship to paul staines and the guido fawkes blog?

Old Holborn said...

Paul Staines owes me 1 pint of Guinness

He knows it. I know it.

There will not be peace, EVER, until it is repaid.

The interest on the pint (2008) is one Israeli pizza, from Tel Aviv. Delivered to me.

thelunaticarms said...

I've been stopped five times the last six months, eight the six before, and I'll have to check my dairy for the others.

Of course, I'll have to subtract that from the convictions received but I reckon I'll have a few hundred grand.

Got my Law book and will be having a good read on the throne.

Anonymous said...

Bril Holby, where will you cash your compo cheque - in your er.....'Freeman' bank account?

Shurely shome mishtake?

Arrested any MPs yet? naah, thought not.

Keep talking. The hot air is useful at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant news. Congratulations to Liberty & the defendants. If anyone can sue, I hope they do. If nothing else, it will tie the Courts up. Nice to see that the police intend to continue using S.44 until the results of the appeal. Anyone stopped by them before then should get every piece of evidence they can so that when the appeal fails there's then evidence to show that the police continued to break the law - grounds for another deluge of lawsuits.

Bristol Dave said...

Spark Up:

Forgive me, but what the fuck are you on about? Isn't Jocelyn Jee Esien a comedian?

Anonymous said...

By the way, Gordon's book 'Where There Is Greed' is on sale at Amazon. Have just added a review - let's do a Draper on him & give him lots of reviews.

Swiss Bob said...


OH, any chance of you fixing your blog list (my entry), it seems to be broken.

I haven't retired from blogging just yet.

g-woman said...


is she? first i heard about it.

banned said...

Are we yet in a position to tell plod to get lost if he tries a stop and search S44?

Seeyou said...

The money was paid not as compensation but to cover the legal expensise occcurred in taking this through to the EU court.

Clive said...

New Labour bring old Nuremberg Laws to Britain
Police may act unlawfully when 'only obeying orders'

Police officers could find themselves on the wrong end of a citizen’s arrest if they follow advice issued by Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, after the European Court of Human Rights slapped the UK's stop and search laws.

According to government lawyers, however, so long as officials are "only obeying orders", there is little the ordinary citizen can do to resist them.


A curious contention. I'd pay little heed to putative government lawyers who've forgotten that under Common Law, the prosecutor does not set the verdict. Anyone placed under arrest is not entitled to release himself on his own authority, no matter what Dayglo costume he happens to be wearing at the time.

Remember your promise to the nation's photographers, Old Holborn:
To stand for their right to enjoy the Queen's Peace, unmolested by the Fabians' private army.

Obtain a supply of handcuffs for next Thursday; they'll be cheaper wholesale. Any members of the Metropolitan Police committing an act of affray would meet the standard for a Citizen's Arrest; any others who attempt to help them escape such lawful custody, likewise. Nor should they expect to be placed into the custody of their fellow conspirators, but to answer to a magistrate, under Habeas Corpus.

418 said...

Over at http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/01/web-cop-to-patrol-internet-for-antipolice-comments.html
the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police is trying to pull the wool over our eyes by quoting MORI poll statistics. Appalling; in denial or what?

Holby, can you do anything about this?

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails