Leading article: The steady erosion of our civil liberties
Latest in Leading Articles
Related articles
Opinion blogs
Circular firing squad at a crossroads
Politico has identified seven dreadful clichés of campaigning in and commenting on the Republican pr...
Reminders of Iraq
I was sorry to learn from Paul Waugh of the death of Brian Jones, the former Defence Intelligence Se...
Mervyn King is more than keeping up on Gilt purchases
The Bank of England is taking more UK government bonds out of the market each month than the Debt Ma...
The return of the discredited methods of stop and search to British policing is most disturbing. Home Office figures show that the number of people being stopped and searched has risen twentyfold in six years. Last year some 100 people were being stopped each day. Why has a technique so long associated with heavy-handed policing - and widely blamed for exacerbating racial tension - been allowed to return? For the answer we must look to the Government's creeping authoritarianism and the opportunity afforded to illiberal ministers by the heightened terrorist threat.
Since the end of the old "sus" laws, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed an offence before they can stop and search them. But the Terrorism Act, passed in 2000, shifted the ground back again. This grants police the right to stop anyone in an area designated as being under threat of terrorism, regardless of whether there is any reason to suspect that person of a crime. Senior police officers can authorise the use of such powers in specific areas for up to 28 days. More than 1,000 orders to establish such areas have been given the go-ahead in the past six years. Ministers, in fear of terrorist attacks, have even encouraged the police to exercise these new sweeping powers, particularly since the July 7 bombings in London.
The result is that numbers of stop and searches has risen sharply. And unsurprisingly, ethnic minorities are being disproportionately targeted again. One in five of those stopped last year was black or Asian.
If stop and search was succeeding in apprehending terrorists, a defence of the tactic might be mounted. But there is no evidence that this is the case. Only 455 people, out of more than 35,000 stopped and searched, were arrested last year through these powers. A small number of these arrests were for terrorism-related offences. But no terrorists themselves were stopped in this way. And there is certainly no reason to believe that major plots have been foiled by these methods. A large number of the arrests were for motoring offences. The reality is that stop and search has become a way for the police to harass innocent members of the public.
This law has been abused in other ways too. There are disturbing indications that it has been used to suppress legitimate political demonstrations. A stop and search zone was used to disrupt protests at an international arms fair in east London in 2003. And we should not forget the treatment of Walter Wolfgang, the pensioner who was arrested under this law after he heckled Jack Straw at last year's Labour conference.
No one would dispute that the police need some discretionary powers, but they cannot be as broad-brush as this law allows. Even Lord Carlile, the Government's independent adviser on terrorism legislation, believes that the use of stop and search could be halved without reducing public safety. Today the House of Lords will, rightly, try to tighten the legislation to limit the power of police to authorise blanket stop-and-search operations.
In recent years we have also seen the surreptitious creation of a DNA database and an explosion of anti-terrorist legislation, and now we are facing a national ID card scheme. Lord Falconer has let slip that the Government wants such cards to become compulsory. All this, combined with the powers of stop and search, means we could soon find ourselves in a position where we have to justify our existence to the state, rather than the other way round. This cannot be tolerated.
A tension between national security and civil liberties is to be expected. But the Government is taking this country down a road that will not only leave us less free, but less safe as well.
- 1 Matthew Norman: There's always the Human Rights Act, Trevor
- 2 Mark Steel: If religion is 'marginal', I'm the Pope
- 3 Hamish McRae: Living standards will start to get better sooner than you think
- 4 Christina Patterson: The struggle against police racism has just got a lot harder
- 5 Kate Allen: It's time for America to put an end to this shameful scandal
- 6 The Daily Cartoon
- 7 Dominic Lawson: Spare me these orgies of self-congratulation
- 1 Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return
- 2 How Koscielny became prince of the Emirates
- 3 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 4 Mark Steel: If religion is 'marginal', I'm the Pope
- 5 No secularism please, we're British
- 6 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 7 Matthew Norman: There's always the Human Rights Act, Trevor
- 8 Special report: The hungry generation
- 9 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 10 Six Grammys, five years off: Adele puts love before career
Free trial of new Independent iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Win a three-week coastal jaunt
Spend three weeks exploring every nook and cranny of gorgeous Atlantic Canada.
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
How an abortion divided America
Did they all live happily ever after? That's up to you...




Comments