A critical review of “stop and search” by police as contained in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
The criminal justice and public order act of 1994 law is particularly unique not only due to the fierce resistance it faced before it was passed into law but also due to the alleged misuse of this law, especially to the minority in the members of society. Moreover, at the time, while it was still in parliament, many felt it was mainly attacking individual members of the community. This lead to numerous protests, as we will later see. More evidently, it affected music groups primarily on a large scale since it also consisted of laws allowing police officers to stop unlicensed parties. Rules are generally used to protect the taxpayer. However, especially the law under section 60 of the criminal justice and public order act of 1994, this was not the case.
It is disheartening to discover that members of the police department bent this law and used it as a vicious tool to oppress and suppress blacks and minority groups of this good nation. We will look at the birth of this law in the mid-1980s, look at the resistance it faced before it was passed, observe what it states, and laws that passed beside it. We will also look at how it was misused, and finally, we will see the changes that were made after the unfair implementation of this law was finally seen by the court, and changes were made.
The criminal justice and Public order act of 1994 is an act of the parliament of the united kingdom. It was raised by Michael Howard, who was the home secretary of prime minister john majors conservative government (Pawlowski, 2017). It made several unprecedented changes, including stopping unlicensed raves and raising penalties to some anti-social behaviors (Pawlowski, 2017). This was a law that was highly protested and had numerous criticism. Many felt that the act was infringing on fundamental human rights. Moreover, musician s in the following years sang many songs against the law and thought that it took away people’s right to party or as it was called in the act ‘raving’.
In this short piece, we will look at stop and search law in the police and criminal evidence act of 1984. This law allowed police officers to stop and search and even arrest an individual without a police warrant, a proper reason, or even reasonable evidence (Norton, 2019). This obviously led to huge campaigns against the bill mostly made up of civil liberty groups. There were massive demonstrations organized in London, the first taking place on 1st may which had an estimate of 20,000 people followed by another on the 24th of July with the number ranging from 20-50 thousand protestors. The third was held on the 9th of October, with 20,000 – 30,000 demonstrators in attendance.
The reason for the protests was because its primal motivation was to curb free parties and raves. Unfortunately, this last demonstration ended with riots whereby confrontation arose when two groups of disk jockeys (Dj) and sound engineers attempted to get into Hyde Park. At the time of the attempt, the policemen were few and therefore held back till reinforcements arrived, after which it was reported that they attacked protesters in an effort to disperse the crowd. Civil liberties group opposed the measures by the act purporting them to be of weak principle and went on further to state that it would violate Human rights by the European convention.
The act states that a police officer of a rank beyond inspector feels that an act of serious violence is to take place in his or her area he must do his best to prevent such an occurrence moreover if he thinks that heavy weapons are being carried around for no apparent reason he has the power to exercise these powers (Lloyd, 2005). At this time, a dangerous weapon meant an instrument that has a blade or is sharply pointed. A constable could also stop any pedestrian for anything carried by him or any driver, passenger, and the vehicle in search of an offensive weapon which is defined as an article made to cause injury to another held by the individual or intended to be used by another person (Lloyd, 2005). A constable could also arrest an individual without a warrant if he or she suspects that the suspect will commit an offense or if he does not feel content with the individual’s residence or identity to prevent the crime (Lloyd, 2005).
In this act, the whole of part V covered disturbance on land, including raves, trespass, squatters, and unauthorized campers. Moreover, section 63 to 67 defied a rave as a group of more than 20 people with music defined as the emission of repetitive beats. Moreover, the definition of music being repetitive beats were too weak even at the time, according to legal experts.
This law is used correctly; it could reduce crime and bring about order. However, at times, the police officers meant to protect citizens due to the powers granted to them misuse these powers, making us question the legitimacy of the police service. Police professionalism especially has a lot to do with the implementation of this law. According to(Kitchens 2017, p. 105), over a million stop and search encounters are conducted annually, but in 2011/2012, only 9% have led to arrests. Moreover, Black and minority groups are stopped and searched more than whites, even after considering the ratio of blacks to whites.
Radical research revealed that the ‘Stop and Search’ provision under section 60 was discriminately being executed. Statistics revealed that blacks and Asians within the England and Welsh territory were highly likely to be stopped and searched than other minority groups. The disproportionate execution of the ‘Stop and search’ provision has not been justified by metropolitan police over the years.
The provision under section 60 continues to receive critic just like section 44 of the terrorism Act for discriminative execution. Groups advocating for human rights reiterate that police need to exercise their warrants and search lawfully and fairly across all members of society irrespective of their skin color, origin, and race. The act is apparent on reasonable crime and tools that could aid criminal activity, susceptible location, and searching in a reasonable duration.
This particularly is poor for the society since such acts lead to reduced confidence in the police force; moreover, public support is essential in helping police officers in doing their work and make people responsible for minimizing crime and order (Quershi, 2007). After many years the protestors cry were felt when the discriminatory manner in which the law was used and the overuse of the law soured the relationships between police and the members of the public.
Ann Roberts was on a bus in 2010 September when the ticket inspector realized she did not have enough fare. Moreover, she failed to provide correct identification details. A police officer arrived and searched her in accordance with the act of 1994. She was handcuffed and restrained on the ground by the officers (Booth, 2019, p.67.She felt that the stop and search exercised on her because she was of African-Caribbean heritage. Moreover, she felt the lack of identification was not satisfactory reasonable doubt.
She combated the UK stating the law is too open, allowing for its discriminate use. The case heard for the first time in may 2012 was rejected even after a presentation from the ministry of justice statistics indicating Africans are 23.5 times more frequently searched than whites while Asians were 4.5 times more likely (Booth, 2019, p. 63). However, the high court dismissed her plea claiming it was not exercised in a discriminatory manner, therefore, lacking appreciation of the real impact of stop and search.
The stop and search section is reasonably credible because its execution is discharged within a restricted geographical context. Legislators and senior police officers felt that the stop and search Act was improved by focusing on a certain suspected region rather than random unsuspected areas previously executed under section 44 (Quershi, 2007). The stop and search provision under section 60 enhances precision under senior police authorization to contain crime. A suspected crime scene can be contained by metropolitan police hence preventing further destruction or disruption of a planned crime.
In 2011, riots were observed in England for excessive use of ‘Stop and search’ rights bestowed on the police by the 1994 Act. The public outcry depicts habits by police officers who exert more pressure on members of the public while exercising the stop and search directives. For example, many community members in London believe the police, in general, have a pre-determined stereotype of certain ethnic minorities.
According to Stopwatch, an organization that aims to bring fairer practices to policing in the UK, many Londoners account for this as standard misuse of police power (The Observer, 2019). Excessive force has led to a negative public attitude towards the police in England and Wales; communities are insisting on the need of police officers to be fair while engaging the public by rationally enforcing search authority. The London riots of 2011 portrayed the public’s frustrations and anger on discriminative police dispensation of the stop and search rights. ).
Grievances relating to inequality on police service was a significant cause of the riots. Had the police been professionally fair in dispensing their services, such destruction and injuries would never have happened (Stone, 2008). People have also been injured in the search fracas by police personnel while executing search orders. The provisions of the act, particularly section 60, was violated substantially.
However, in 2011, it was announced that the search powers would be reviewed due to disproportionate use, which had caused riots. In 2012 Metropolitan Police made an announcement stating they will scale back this section of the law (Souza, 2016, p. 460).In 2010 Liberty won a legal case saying that section 44 of the same act was also unlawful as it infringed on respect for private life. This was evident in Gillian Quinton versus the UK, whereby the court ruled that section 44 had failed to safeguard private human life and abuse (Souza, 2016, p. 460). Since this section 44 can only be implemented on vehicle seizures and searching and not individuals, it was further termed as too broad. In the year 2012, counter-terrorism concluded that it ought to be repealed, and it was replaced in the protection and freedoms act (Souza, 2016, p. 460).
This was a significant improvement, and it regulated stricter time limits, therefore, ensuring these powers are utilized only in a genuine emergency. Targeting a specific race is quite unprofessional as it reflects disproportionate dispensation of the law. Continuous police sensitization about section 60 would have avoided public outcry as police would approach all the groups equally irrespective of their race, gender, or origin. Persistent police sensitization ought to be inculcated to stamp out all sorts of discrimination in the profession.
The use of excessive force while executing the “stop and search” by police has also been criticized by a large proportion of society. A good example is photographers’ protests in 2010 against police ‘stop and searches’ excessive force (Stone, 2008, p. 56). It is essential for police professionals to handle individuals while executing their rights as outlined therein under section 60 of the act humanely.
Section 60 of the justice and public order act improved article 44 of the terrorism act. However, further changes still need to be met. Moreover, ut is not a matter of the law but instead appealing to the humanity that lies within us. These laws had to be amended not because the law was particularly wrong but rather due to its unfair implementation. Even though changing laws that are misused has proven to help reduce crime, it would be even more effective if we would view each other as a fellow human and not judge anyone based on race or ethnic background.
Work cited
Jason- Lloyd, L., (2005) (2nd Edn.) An Introduction to Policing and Police Powers. Australia: Cavendish Publishing.
Kantor, S., Kitchens, C. and Pawlowski, S., 2017. Civil Asset Forfeiture, Crime, and Police Incentives: Evidence from the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (No. w23873). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Miller, J. and D’Souza, A., 2016. Indirect effects of police searches on community attitudes to the police: resentment or reassurance?. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(3), pp
Ozin, P., and Norton, H., 2019. PACE: A practical guide to the police and criminal evidence act 1984. Oxford University Press.
Qureshi, F. (2007) ‘Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management The Impact of Extended Police Stop and Search Powers under the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003’, Policing:
Stone, R., 2008 (7th Edn.) Textbook on Civil Liberties & Human Rights. Oxford: OXFORD University Press.
The Observer (London, England) (2019) ‘Police accused of abusing easier stop and search;
Booth, T., 2019. Victim participation rights: victims across criminal justice systems: by Kerstin Braun, Palgrave MacMillan, 2019, ISBN 978-3-030-04546-3.