http://www.urban75.org/genoa/011.html

we need to do something about this S60 marlarky - they're taking the piss

remember they "can't" but will search your wallet etc - see report of London Genoa solidarity demo - so don't take ID with you to a demo.
And you may well not be in a position not to get photographed/videoed...
If you refuse to give a name and address, they will take down a description of you on their form.
Remember - you probably know the law better than them!

Searches under section 60 of the CJA are governed by rules laid down under section 2 of PACE.

The following excert is taken from an appeal case where coviction for assault on police officers was overturned as the coppers in qyuestion breached section 2 of PACE by not supplying their names / numbers / station / reason for search etc.

This is the theory at least, as many peoples experience testifies, searches are often conducted improperly, with no comeback on the officers involved. If any charges are brought after such an improper search then the person involved would have a legitimate defence.

The full text can be found at:
 http://ourworld.cs.com/_ht_a/RJer340036/law/cases/osman.htm

The powers of search so conferred are governed by the pre-existing requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 2 makes the following relevant provision:

"(2) if a constable contemplates a search, other than a search of an unattended vehicle, in the exercise -

(a) of the power conferred by section 1 above [that is a power of stopping and searching if there are reasonable grounds for a material suspicion]; or

(b) of any other power...

(i) to search a person without first arresting him; or

(ii) to search a vehicle without making an arrest

it shall be his duty, subject to subsection (4) below, to take reasonable steps before he commences the search to bring to the attention of the appropriate person -

(i) if the constable is not in uniform, documentary evidence that he is a constable; and

(ii) whether he is in uniform or not, the matters specified in subsection (3) below;

and the constable shall not commence the search until he has performed that duty.

(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2)(ii) above are -

(a) the constable's name and the name of the police station to which he is attached;

(b) the object of the proposed search;

(c) the constable's grounds for proposing to make it

It is undisputed - indeed indisputable - that this regime applies to the powers of search under section 60 of the 1994 Act. It is plain from the mandatory words "the constable shall not commence the search until he has performed that duty" that any search initiated without prior compliance with the duties of disclosure and information set out in section 2 of PACE is an unlawful search. if so, no officer who is assaulted in conducting it is assaulted in the execution of his duty, even though it may well be that excessive resistance nevertheless constitutes an assault in law.


Section 60 is only part of the problem, and I am aware that I have only mentioned on aspect of the S60 search. I would like more info on powers of detention under Breath of the Peace law, particularly case law relating to the length of detention which is reasonable.

Some relevant case law on Breach of the Peace can be found on the same site as the above excerpt, but I can find little on this aspect.

This is really useful to know - I would recommend everyon ereading this do as I am about to - print out this passage, copy it and distribute copies to everyone with you when you go on demos/actions, as you would a bust card. Better still, find the exact wording of the Act (will post that up here if I have time) and add that to the flyer along with the info on what S60 doesn't allow the cops to do. That way lots of people can wave the flyer in their faces which will
a) really piss them off
b) leave them no excuse in case of complaints
c) in the long run, IF enough people resist illegal tactics in this way, it COULD restrict the cops ability to use them, though that will probably just lead to yet more draconian legislation being passed.

Tie them up in their own red tape!

Just looked up text of section 60, which isn't itself very useful, but can a lawyer (Rochelle?) clarify: does this clause invalidate your comments on not being able to search wallets etc?

(5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind.

I am a law student. "... weapons or articles of that kind" I think "that" is the operative word so any search which might uncover such things would be legal. However, (1) anything in an Act that is ambiguous would be considered by a judge who is likely to give the cops the benefit of the doubt; (2) there is other stop-and-search legislation which could be used instead.

The Knives Act 1997 gives the police have what is in practice a general power of stop and search for weapons. (This goes further than PACE, which requires 'reasonable suspicion'. TKA 1997 doesn't. There are three categories of weapons: something designed for causing injury (knuckleduster), one adapted to cause injury (broken bottle), one intended to cause injury (huge discretion, could conceivably include anything, but not knives with blades of less than 3 inches - penknives). If you are found with an object meeting one of those descriptions in a public place without lawful authoritiy or reasonable excuse, you are committing an offence under various statutes (3 I think!) The burden of proof is on you to prove a 'reasonable excuse' - giving the police huge discretion - but use for work or for a hobby is reasonable.

However the search is just for weapons, and wallets and purses are presumably too small to conceal them - so the police are acting outside their authority to do so. If one does so, say it is violating your right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Manchester Earth First's advice was more practical though (I just know the letter of the law!)... That the police will do it anyway, so it's wise not to take ID. But it should hopefully break down the police's perceived authority if they know that you know that they can't do what they're doing!

About not being in a position to avoid having your photo taken... I took a camera along tonight, so when they filmed me I filmed them. I thought it was good to break down their perceived authority, again! If we had had a confrontation about it (we didn't), again I would have mentioned my right to privacy under article 8. You can also request copies of the pictures (but then they will get even more information about you).

I have a Liberty book which says "the detention may only last for as long as it is reasonably required to permit a search to be carried out at the place of detention or nearby".

I'm going to try to get time to write something clear about the various public order laws and how to respond.. It would be good to get feedback on it as well, and try to create something practically useful, I think? I'll send it here when I do it. :)

Yesterday among many others I was at than Italian embassy and I was filmed (many times, just to be sure)by police.
But as I was leaving the embassy, unlocking my scoter, a very diligent police said to his colleague: the number plate, get the number...
I do not particularly care about my identity to be discovered, I am just very pissed off that they did it. full stop.
Ceci

I agree that section 60 is not particularly useful. Having looked at it again myself (see link given below for full text) I am confused about this stuff about not being able to search purses etc. Where does this advice come from - I can only find reference to it in the wombleaction S60 advice.

Section 60 gives the power to search for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments:

(4) This section confers on any constable in uniform power—
(a) to stop any pedestrian and search him or anything carried by him for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments;

I think the key thing here are the words "anything carried by him", also

(6) If in the course of a search under this section a constable discovers a dangerous instrument or an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be an offensive weapon, he may seize it.

As noted in a previous posting this seems to give police rights to search anything they like - can a lawyer clarify? - is there any case law on this?

Also I feel this definition is important:

"dangerous instruments" means instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed;

ie it looks like this could concievably be a pair of nail scissors, or a screwdriver, and not neccessarily a knife.

The legislation on paper does not seem to prevent the searching of small items.

>

I think it originates in the idea that the search is for weapons or offensive instruments only, and wallets and purses would be too small to conceal a weapon. Particularly as CJPOA (if I remember rightly) excludes knives with blades of under 3inches and penknives from being 'weapons'. Then someone mentioned razorblades to me in another list and made me think twice. So now I wonder if they can search wallets, but it would have to just be for razorblades (what other weapons are so small?) It could be worth arguing with any policeman looking through your wallet anyway, "what weapons are you going to find in there? I'm not going to stab you with my barclaycard..." as unless they come up with the razorblades anomoly, they are not searching for 'weapons'.

I started writing something last night to clarify it all and hopefully condense a lot of information! It is all in various legislation like PACE, codes of conduct, CJPOA, Knives Act etc which is why there's confusion.

>

Yes it can be any household object like that, giving the police huge discretion. Apart from razorblades though, I'm struggling to think of other weapons small enough? Penknives are excluded, you'd have a 'reasonable excuse' to carry nail scissors. I guess there are small screwdrivers though... It also occured to me they could just say they are looking for drugs in any case.

FWIW I think Liberty would be interested in any test cases if anyone was charged. The police don't need resaonable suspicion to search, breaching article 5 of the Human Rights Act (must be based on 'reasonable suspicion')

Anyway getting all confused now so will defer to others' advice!
rochelle