Stop and search powers in UK terrorism investigations: a limited judicial oversight?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

At the pre-trial stage of counter-terrorist investigations, an 'Anglo-Saxon' indulgence towards street-level policing powers has been brought to task by European human rights norms, especially privacy, which are exerting new forms of control over policing discretion and opening judicial oversight over traditional policing activity. This article examines these trends in relation to suspicionless counter-terrorist stop and search. While the European Court of Human Rights applied robust scrutiny in the case of Gillan v United Kingdom, in stark contrast to approach by the House of Lords, there exists a number of challenges which are threatening to weaken judicial scrutiny in this area. First, more recent European Court of Human Rights cases show a more indulgent stance being taken towards policing powers. Second, the precautionary nature of suspicionless counter-terrorist stop and search raises a number of difficulties in relation to effective oversight. In addition, it is a counter-terrorist measure of general application which have, to date, not been subjected to particularly rigorous scrutiny.
LanguageEnglish
Pages634-648
Number of pages15
JournalInternational Journal of Human Rights
Volume20
Issue number5
Early online date27 Apr 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Jul 2016

Fingerprint

terrorism
human rights
privacy
trend

Keywords

  • counter-terrorism
  • policing powers
  • precaution
  • stop and search
  • human rights

Cite this

@article{2317cb3a4a2f44f78d63be549f8b8c60,
title = "Stop and search powers in UK terrorism investigations: a limited judicial oversight?",
abstract = "At the pre-trial stage of counter-terrorist investigations, an 'Anglo-Saxon' indulgence towards street-level policing powers has been brought to task by European human rights norms, especially privacy, which are exerting new forms of control over policing discretion and opening judicial oversight over traditional policing activity. This article examines these trends in relation to suspicionless counter-terrorist stop and search. While the European Court of Human Rights applied robust scrutiny in the case of Gillan v United Kingdom, in stark contrast to approach by the House of Lords, there exists a number of challenges which are threatening to weaken judicial scrutiny in this area. First, more recent European Court of Human Rights cases show a more indulgent stance being taken towards policing powers. Second, the precautionary nature of suspicionless counter-terrorist stop and search raises a number of difficulties in relation to effective oversight. In addition, it is a counter-terrorist measure of general application which have, to date, not been subjected to particularly rigorous scrutiny.",
keywords = "counter-terrorism, policing powers, precaution, stop and search, human rights",
author = "Genevieve Lennon",
note = "This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in The International Journal of Human Rights on 27 April 2016, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13642987.2016.1162410",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/13642987.2016.1162410",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "634--648",
journal = "International Journal of Human Rights",
issn = "1364-2987",
number = "5",

}

Stop and search powers in UK terrorism investigations : a limited judicial oversight? / Lennon, Genevieve.

In: International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 20, No. 5, 03.07.2016, p. 634-648.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stop and search powers in UK terrorism investigations

T2 - International Journal of Human Rights

AU - Lennon, Genevieve

N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in The International Journal of Human Rights on 27 April 2016, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13642987.2016.1162410

PY - 2016/7/3

Y1 - 2016/7/3

N2 - At the pre-trial stage of counter-terrorist investigations, an 'Anglo-Saxon' indulgence towards street-level policing powers has been brought to task by European human rights norms, especially privacy, which are exerting new forms of control over policing discretion and opening judicial oversight over traditional policing activity. This article examines these trends in relation to suspicionless counter-terrorist stop and search. While the European Court of Human Rights applied robust scrutiny in the case of Gillan v United Kingdom, in stark contrast to approach by the House of Lords, there exists a number of challenges which are threatening to weaken judicial scrutiny in this area. First, more recent European Court of Human Rights cases show a more indulgent stance being taken towards policing powers. Second, the precautionary nature of suspicionless counter-terrorist stop and search raises a number of difficulties in relation to effective oversight. In addition, it is a counter-terrorist measure of general application which have, to date, not been subjected to particularly rigorous scrutiny.

AB - At the pre-trial stage of counter-terrorist investigations, an 'Anglo-Saxon' indulgence towards street-level policing powers has been brought to task by European human rights norms, especially privacy, which are exerting new forms of control over policing discretion and opening judicial oversight over traditional policing activity. This article examines these trends in relation to suspicionless counter-terrorist stop and search. While the European Court of Human Rights applied robust scrutiny in the case of Gillan v United Kingdom, in stark contrast to approach by the House of Lords, there exists a number of challenges which are threatening to weaken judicial scrutiny in this area. First, more recent European Court of Human Rights cases show a more indulgent stance being taken towards policing powers. Second, the precautionary nature of suspicionless counter-terrorist stop and search raises a number of difficulties in relation to effective oversight. In addition, it is a counter-terrorist measure of general application which have, to date, not been subjected to particularly rigorous scrutiny.

KW - counter-terrorism

KW - policing powers

KW - precaution

KW - stop and search

KW - human rights

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84965163503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fjhr20/current

U2 - 10.1080/13642987.2016.1162410

DO - 10.1080/13642987.2016.1162410

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 634

EP - 648

JO - International Journal of Human Rights

JF - International Journal of Human Rights

SN - 1364-2987

IS - 5

ER -