Salaam


Home l Books l Hajj & Ummrah l Events l Lifestyle l Quran l Noticeboard l Site Map l About Us
Fri 18 April 2014
18 Jumaada al-Thaanee 1435 AH  

Introduction
History of Muslims in the UK
Recognition in public sphere
Defining events
Demographics / charts
Politics in Britain
Inventory of Arrests
Legislation affecting Muslims
Representative bodies
Beacon Institutions
Who's who men
Who's who women
Landmark future developments
Books&Reports
My Neighbourhood

Comments and suggestions, please email info@salaam.co.uk


Salaam ARCHIVED 31st July 2005

The regime of stop and searches arrests, sweeps and raids sanctioned by the Terrorism laws - the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 (ACTSA) – is degenerating into a cruel farce. The inventory of arrests and the judicial outcome highlights the tendentious and arbitrary nature of this regime: those caught up include hapless individuals with mental health problems, petty criminals and visa dodgers, and the young Asian or white Muslim revert who fits the profile – prays at a so-called ‘Wahabi mosque’, visits Internet sites dealing with Muslim causes such as Chechnya, wears the traditional dress. Over 600 arrests have led to three Muslims actually convicted under TACT - and two of them have been given leave to appeal.

(i) Stop and search
Information published by the Scrutiny Panel of the Met Police indicates that the number of Asians stopped and searched – including their vehicles has increased from 237 in 2000/2001 to 2362 in 2003/2004 under s.44 of TACT alone. Statistics are only available on the basis of ethnic origin, and not religion. Stop and Search do not have to be logged by the Police in all cases; there are also a variety of laws allowing stop and search other than the anti-Terrorism laws e.g. PACE. In 2001/2 and 2002/3, less than 1% of people stopped and searched under s.44(i) and (ii) TACT were arrested.

(ii) Arrests
There have been 609 arrests under the anti-Terrorism laws, TACT and ACTSA (to August 2004). About 20 of these relate to Kurdish, Irish and Greek revolutionary groups.

(iii) Convictions
The 600+ arrests have led to 15 convictions.

A detailed study by Harmit Awal of the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) notes that “Of the eleven of the fifteen convictions under anti-terrorist laws since 11 September 2001, only three Muslims have actually been convicted under the 2000 Act and two of them have been given leave to appeal their convictions. Six of those convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 are white and were convicted for offences such as wearing a ring or carrying a flag with the symbols of banned Loyalist organisations. The 2000 Act makes it illegal even to wear a T-shirt supporting a banned organisation. A further two non-Muslims have been convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, one for sending a racist letter containing white powder to the office of Mohammad Sarwar MP”.

While it is Muslims who are bearing the brunt of this regime, wider society too faces its consequences. Professor Geart of the LSE has put his finger on the problem - the institutional urge within the law enforcement and security organisations – if there is a power available, it will be deployed: “So there is a voracious appetite on the part of what one might call the secret state – to aggrandizing more and more power and laws – but the more they have, the more they seem to need and the paranoia and our anxiety continues” (BBC Radio 4 ‘Start the Week’, 9 December 2002)

TACT has been successfully applied to stop protestors approaching the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) conference at the ExCel Centre in London's Docklands in September 2003.

The Political establishment too is not above welcoming Police interventions that can shape public opinion and send a signal. For example commenting on the armoured vehicles in Heathrow incident in February 2003, Sir Rodric Braithwaite, former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, has observed “I mean all that stuff... tanks at Heathrow. I mean, I call that overselling." George Galloway, an outspoken anti-war MP, found himself detained at Heathrow in March 2004 while in transit to address a meeting in Belfast – the policeman on duty felt that TACT could be interpreted to stop such a visit. A leading Muslim scholar, Yusuf Motala, was also detained at Heathrow for seven hours under TACT in October 2003

There is a deep human cost to the gung ho Police tactics. In January 2003 the raid on a flat in Manchester to enforce a deportation order on an Algerian resulted in the fatal stabbing of PC Oake. The Police raid in December 2003, also involving the Territorial Support Group (TSG) on the home of Muslim family in Tooting is now a cause celebre within the British Muslim community, becoming a byword for Police brutal behaviour, notwithstanding the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to pursue disciplinary action: the decent Babar Ahmad whom family and friends vouchsafe as totally innocent was subjected to a beating by the Territorial Support Group (TSG) in which he suffered 50 separate injuries after being repeatedly kicked, punched and stamped upon, according to a medical report.

Muslim businesses too are finding themselves at the receiving end – suddenly the object of Police visits on grounds such as ‘responding to a 999 call’. The well-respected and influential Muslim Directory for example describes how one of its managers was contacted by the Met in early September 2004 and told ‘we can come in anytime we want day or night!’: “His attitude was very abrupt, intimidating and bordering on threatening”.

The root of the problem is that the anti-Terrorism laws have removed the ‘reasonable suspicion’ criteria required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE, 1984) in order to undertake a stop and search. Under PACE, the power to stop and search served as an investigative power to be used for the purposes of crime detection or prevention in relation to a specific individual at a specific time. TACT is more wide-ranging and requires less in terms of grounds and suspicion. It makes things far easier for the Police to pick people up without due care and diligent research. The incidents presented in the inventory below frequently show charges on grounds such as possession of ‘quasi-military information’, or even carrying a battery and wires in a rucksack.

Moreover, once a geographical area is deemed to be under terrorist threat, the Police are free to stop and search anyone or anything within it. Every fortnight, the Commissioner for the Met obtains an automatic renewal of an authorisation from the Home Secretary for the whole of London!

It is not the Muslim community alone that believes something must be done to restore the balance between the valid need to protect society from terrorist acts and civil liberties. In May 2004 the Scrutiny Panel of the Metropolitan Police Authority reviewed the stop and search statistics under s.44 of TACT and concluded that steps were needed to remove “the improper use of power”. The Joint Committee on Human Rights comprising MPs and peers in August 2004 stated that “We also note there is mounting evidence the powers under the Terrorism Act (2000) are being used disproportionately against members of the Muslim community”. Everyone, not just Muslims, have a right not to be detained without a lawful excuse.

-->

“So far as the use of stop and search and fighting “ordinary crime” – quote, unquote – is concerned – we believe stop and search is an invaluable tool for the police if properly used. The use of stop and search in relation to fighting terrorism we believe is not appropriate. We believe there is no evidence – the stats we have seen so far do not prove otherwise – that in fact Section 44 has helped fight terrorism in London or elsewhere… We believe its use, as perceived in the community, is an extremely negative one and it is doing a disservice to the partnership that we believe there must be in fighting terrorism. Also we believe there are serious issues about the use of intelligence with regard to Section 44 and query how that intelligence is being analysed. There are one of two explanations: either the intelligence is extremely flawed which begs serious questions or, frankly, the exercise of discretion by the police is seriously flawed which also requires examination”.
Sadiq Khan, Chair of the MCB’s Legal Affairs Committee, presenting evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on ‘Anti-Terrorism Powers’, 8th July 2004

--> -->


References
Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT)

Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001 (ACTSA)

Study of the Institute of Race Relations, study be Harmit Atwal of Britain’s use of anti-Terrorism laws, September 2004

Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA): Report of the Scrutiny Panel on search and stop practice (May 2004)

Statistics published by the MPA - Total searches undertaken under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act cumulative 44(i) and 44(2)

  White Black Asian Other Not recorded Vehicle only
2003/2004 10,242 1,680 2,362 949 202 4,155
2002/2003 6,359 1,175 2,241 770 728 10,198
2001/2002 2,046 262 460 152 56 1,140
2000/2001 430 36 237 117 24 2,292



s.41, TACT 2000 – Arrest without warrant

1) A constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist.

(2) Where a person is arrested under this section the provisions of Schedule 8 (detention: treatment, review and extension) shall apply.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7), a person detained under this section shall (unless detained under any other power) be released not later than the end of the period of 48 hours beginning-

(a) with the time of his arrest under this section, or
(b) if he was being detained under Schedule 7 when he was arrested under this section, with the time when his examination under that Schedule began.
(4) If on a review of a person's detention under Part II of Schedule 8 the review officer does not authorise continued detention, the person shall (unless detained in accordance with subsection (5) or (6) or under any other power) be released.

(5) Where a police officer intends to make an application for a warrant under paragraph 29 of Schedule 8 extending a person's detention, the person may be detained pending the making of the application.

(6) Where an application has been made under paragraph 29 or 36 of Schedule 8 in respect of a person's detention, he may be detained pending the conclusion of proceedings on the application.

(7) Where an application under paragraph 29 or 36 of Schedule 8 is granted in respect of a person's detention, he may be detained, subject to paragraph 37 of that Schedule, during the period specified in the warrant.

(8) The refusal of an application in respect of a person's detention under paragraph 29 or 36 of Schedule 8 shall not prevent his continued detention in accordance with this section.

(9) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise the power under subsection (1) in any Part of the United Kingdom.


s.44, TACT 2000 – Power to Stop and Search

1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search- (a) the vehicle; (b) the driver of the vehicle; (c) a passenger in the vehicle; (d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.

(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the pedestrian; (b) anything carried by him.

(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

(4) An authorisation may be given-
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable; (b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police; (c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force; (d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.

(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.


Back








 


Site Map | Contact