Abuse of power part 3
As we saw last week there is a serious concern that the police are given powers that they abuse. Nor is it confined to the police. The same could be said of local authority or other governmental organisations. This also led to the concern that there is an unhealthy symbiosis between the police and government. The government wants extra powers for law enforcement (to deal with terrorism etc, such as extending the period for which people can be detained without charge). Although this is a political rather than a strictly legal issue, certain senior police officers will support the request. They will then possibly be able to use the powers in a way that is outwith the spirit if not the wording of the relevant legislation. When politicians want the police to have greater powers, and the police want to have greater powers, an unhealthy interdependence can develop. This can be the case even if all sides are acting in an entirely proper and principled way.
A good example of this is the use of the Terrorism Act 2000. Part V of the act deals with counter terrorist powers. Although the arrest of Damian Green was not undertaken under this Act, the use of large teams of anti-terrorist officers on a such an arrest seemed heavy-handed and designed to be intimidating. However there are plenty of examples of misuse of these powers. In order to understand how the misuse can arise, it is necessary to understand the powers themselves. Section 40 defines what a terrorist is. Section 41 then provides that a constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist. Section 42 provides that a magistrate may on the application of a constable issue a warrant in relation to specified premises if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person whom the constable reasonably suspects to be a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism is to be found there. Likewise under section 43 a constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
So far all of this is not necessarily problematical. However it is when one comes to analyse the stop and search powers under section 44 that the difficulties really begin. This deals with powers under sections 44-46. These sections deal with "authorisations". This allows certain persons to give authorisations relating to a particular area. So for example if the area is within the City of London, the authorisation has to be given by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force. If the area is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, the authorisation has to be given by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police. If the area is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland (where the person giving the authorisation has to be a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable), then unless the area is within the city of London or the Metropolitan police district the authorisation has to be given by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable. Once the authorisation is given that allows certain powers to be exercised by constables within the area for which the power is issued. We will next week at the consequences of that and how that power can be misused.