R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police authorised stop and searches under Sections 44 and 45 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for 28 days, with the decision confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. A student and a journalist, stopped and searched while en route to a demonstration, challenged the authorisations, alleging violations of their rights under the ECHR.

Issue: Whether the stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 infringed the claimants' rights to liberty, private life, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly under the ECHR, and whether the powers were lawfully authorised.

Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, upholding the lawfulness of the stop and search powers and confirming they did not breach the ECHR. The Court found that the powers, although broad, were adequately regulated and did not violate the claimants' rights.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Bingham of Cornhill emphasized that the stop and search powers were lawful under the ECHR because they were regulated by clear and accessible rules, even though the specific authorisations were not publicly available. He affirmed that the powers did not breach Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), Article 10 (freedom of expression), or Article 11 (freedom of assembly), as they were proportionate and operated within statutory limits.

💡Leveluplaw: Stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 are lawful under the ECHR if they are exercised within clear and regulated limits. Even broad powers must comply with principles of legality and proportionality to avoid arbitrary application and to respect individual rights.