The Home Office is studying the European Court of Human Rights' rejection of its appeal, which, in effect, renders Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 illegal. In a statement issued to BJP, the Home Office says that "the Government has already committed to reviewing counter-terrorism legislation which will include the operation of the Section 44 stop and search provisions."

It adds: "We are currently giving full consideration to the judgement and its implications.” BJP understands that the ruling could also impact Section 76 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2008, which makes it a potential crime to take pictures of armed officers engaged in anti-terrorism activities.

Section 76, which amended Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, targets anyone who "elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Read our January 2009 report here.

The Home Office declines to comment further, but adds that police forces across the UK will be informed of any change of policy once the implications of the European Court's decision have been considered.

A spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police tells BJP that it is waiting to hear from the Home Office before adjusting its guidelines. "This is with the Home Office at the moment," she says.

In the meantime, photographers are slated to gather in front of New Scotland Yard on Sunday to celebrate their victory. Read our full report here.

The news comes after BJP was able to confirm, yesterday evening, that the European Court of Human Rights has rejected the Home Office appeal against a 12 January decision that had found Section 44 to be illegal.

In a letter, seen by BJP, the Court wrote to the Government that "the panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber decided on 28 June 2010 not to accept your government's request that the [Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom] case be referred to the Grand Chamber."

The Court added: "The judgment of 12 January 2010 therefore became final on 28 June 2010."

In a statement, the human rights group Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs, adds that "the European Court of Human Rights confirmed it has rejected the British government’s final appeal over section 44 stop and search powers." 

On 12 January, the European Court stated that the use of Section 44 to stop-and-search people is illegal and that the powers lack proper 'safeguards against abuse'.

The court was hearing the case of Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton, who were both stopped during a London-based arms trade show on 09 September 2003. The police were 'acting under sections 44-47 of the 2000 Act, while (the two were) on their way to a demonstration close to an arms fair held in the Docklands area of East London'.

The European Court found that the two protesters' rights had been violated under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. "The Court considered that the use of the coercive powers conferred by the anti-terrorism legislation to require an individual to submit to a detailed search of their person, clothing and personal belongings amounted to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life," the European Court found in its judgment.

It continued: 'The public nature of the search, with the discomfort of having personal information exposed to public view, might even in certain cases compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment.'

The court added that it was 'struck by the statistical and other evidence showing the extent to which police officers resorted to the powers of stop and search under section 44 of the Act and found that there was a clear risk of arbitrariness in granting such broad discretion to the police officer.

There was, furthermore, a risk that such a widely framed power could be misused against demonstrators and protestors in breach of Article 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.'

The Home Office had appealed the decision, asking for the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to take on the case. That request has now been denied, and the 12 January decision is final.

"This appeal was always doomed," says Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty. "The objectionable policy of broad stop and search without suspicion was wrong in principle and has proven divisive and counterproductive in practice. The Great Repeal Bill promised by the new Government provides the perfect opportunity for the UK finally to comply with this common sense judgment."

Speaking to BJP, Quinton welcomes the news. "This is fantastic," she says. "That also means that anyone that has been stopped under these powers from 12 January now have a [legal] case."

While the European Court of Human Rights had found the powers to be illegal, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers pledged, in January, to continue using Section 44.

The new government, with the introduction of the Freedom Bill, announced in May that it would reform the unpopular anti-terrorism laws that have constantly been used against photographers.

The Bill intends to strike a balance between protecting the public and ensuring civil liberties are preserved. Over the past few years, and particularly in the last 18 months, Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to prevent photographers from working in public places. The government says that the Freedom Bill will introduce "safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation."

However, the government added that such reform would only take place after its appeal had been reviewed. With the European Court of Human Rights siding with Quinton and Gillan, the Home Office could be forced to bring to a stop the use of the controversial powers.

Developing...

To stay updated on this case, sign up to our free email newsletter here.