tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post8074764751534754443..comments2024-03-28T09:08:50.733+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: Detention of David Miranda - is this a disturbing use of State power?ObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-17237243889950101592013-08-21T17:19:27.764+01:002013-08-21T17:19:27.764+01:00Many thanks for the reply and your post on the Cod...Many thanks for the reply and your post on the Code. This was my take specifically on the part reading "When deciding whether to exercise their powers, examining officers should base their decisions on a number of considerations including ... individuals or groups whose current or past involvement in acts or threats of terrorism is known or suspected". http://commonslaw.wordpress.com/.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-58770354917847548612013-08-21T12:54:29.752+01:002013-08-21T12:54:29.752+01:00There is a Code of Practice for Examining Officers...There is a Code of Practice for Examining Officers. This should be adhered to. Essentially, it is clear that the Schedule 7 power must be used in connection with s.40(1)(b) only. The decision to examine someone has to be based on grounds such as those set out in the Code. Please see my post Miranda 2 which looks at this in more detail.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-78560768450780847182013-08-21T12:53:58.988+01:002013-08-21T12:53:58.988+01:00Yes - Schedule 7 must be used in connection with s...Yes - Schedule 7 must be used in connection with s40(1)(b). Please note it may not be used in connection with 40(1)(a). We don't know the government / Police side of this story so not possible to properly assess whether the examination was unlawful. In any event that's a decision for a court and not a blog!! IF the authorities used this power for some reason not covered by section 40(1)(b) then the detention would have been unlawful. Any powers must be used for their specified purpose: Padfield v Minister of Agriculture is the authority for that.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-38530231163463851362013-08-21T12:48:46.414+01:002013-08-21T12:48:46.414+01:00There is a Code of Practice for Examining Officers...There is a Code of Practice for Examining Officers. This should be adhered to. Essentially, it is clear that the Schedule 7 power must be used in connection with s.40(1)(b) only. The decision to examine someone has to be based on grounds such as those set out in the Code. Please see my post Miranda 2 which looks at this in more detail.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-8426057295472019302013-08-19T23:44:53.369+01:002013-08-19T23:44:53.369+01:00Like Anonymous at 19:48, I think that there are qu...Like Anonymous at 19:48, I think that there are questions about the applicability of s40(1) here and the applicability of Schedule 7. The purpose of Schedule 7 is to determine if s40(1) applies. If the purpose was not to look for evidence of any specified offences, then could the detention have been for an unlawful purpose that renders the decision to detain unlawful?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-42135152166766730762013-08-19T19:48:50.166+01:002013-08-19T19:48:50.166+01:00As you pointed out, there is clearly a problem wit...As you pointed out, there is clearly a problem with the direction of the questioning. ie no effort was made to determine whether Miranda fell within 40(1)(b). But surely there is also an issue with his being stopped in the first place? Sched. 7 allows for this absent any direct suspicion - but this is still subject to rules on arbitrariness. Picking one individual out of a crowd by name can surely only be legitimately done if there is direct suspicion he falls under 40(1)(b)? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com