Gillan v United Kingdom
The police power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion under the Terrorism Act 2000 breached the right to respect for private life because it was not in accordance with the law.
Facts
In 2003, Kevin Gillan, a student, and Pennie Quinton, a journalist, were stopped and searched by police near an arms fair in London's Docklands, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 44 allowed senior officers to authorise stop and search in a specified area without any requirement that the officer have reasonable suspicion. The authorisation covering London had been continuously renewed since 2001. The House of Lords held, in R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12, that the power was lawful. The applicants then went to the European Court of Human Rights.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that the use of section 44 breached article 8 of the Convention, the right to respect for private life. The powers of authorisation and of stop and search were neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse, because they could be authorised over wide areas for long periods, and individual officers had an extremely wide discretion to stop anyone without any suspicion. The powers were therefore not in accordance with the law. The government suspended the use of section 44 and replaced it with more limited powers in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Related cases on civil liberties: expression, assembly, privacy and police powers
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 9 QBD 308
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
