Roberts v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Laws |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 530 |
| Date | 20 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2012/2575 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2013] EWCA Civ 530
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(LORD JUSTICE MOSES AND MR JUSTICE EADY)
.Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Laws
Case No: C1/2012/2575
Mr Hugh Southey QC (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a judgment of the Divisional Court, [2012] EWHC Admin 1977 (Moses LJ and Eady J) given on 17 July 2012 dismissing the applicant's claim for judicial review, by which was sought a declaration pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is incompatible with Article 5 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission to appeal to this court was refused by Arden LJ on consideration of the papers on 31 December 2012. Section 60 allows a senior police officer to authorise the use of stop and search powers for a limited period, if certain conditions are fulfilled. The context of the complaint is an assertion on the applicant's behalf that stop and search powers authorised under section 60 have been exercised, particularly (perhaps entirely) in London, disproportionately against black people and I think also people of Asian ethnicity.
A raft of arguments was canvassed before the Divisional Court and are sought to be raised in this court. The Divisional Court held that Article 5 was not engaged, although Article 8 was. They distinguished the important Strasbourg decision in Gillan v UK [2010] Volume 50 ECHRR 45. That concerned section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a measure which however bears some comparison at least with section 60. There are, very broadly, two issues in the debate about section 60, and on this permission application I hope I may be forgiven for oversimplification. The first of these is whether the power to issue an authorisation for stops to take place is so arbitrary or open-ended that it is not "in accordance with...
To continue reading
Request your trial