Terrorism Act 2000 Section 44

Mr Harding made this Freedom of Information request to British Transport Police

The request was refused by British Transport Police.

From: Mr Harding

5 December 2009

Dear British Transport Police,

Under the Terrorism Act 2000 Section 44, the Police are allowed to
designate areas of the country where law enforcement personnel
could stop and search any person and/or vehicle without having to
have a valid reason and confiscate any item that could conceivably
have a terrorist purpose.

Please can you release all locations in Cheshire that are
designated under Section 44.

I appreciate that some locations, the Police may be sensitive about
disclosure but I would also like a total of areas actively
designated under the legislation that the BTP are aware of, along
with a full reason as to any non-disclosure.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Harding

Link to this

From: Coleman, Brian
British Transport Police

7 January 2010

Dear Sir

In respect of your request dated 5th December 2009 asking `Please can you
release all locations in Cheshire that are designated under Section 44',
British Transport Police respond as follows. In accordance with section 1
(1) (a) of the Act BTP's response is provided below;

British Transport Police confirms it holds information you have requested
and can confirm there is a Section 44 authority covering parts of
Cheshire, but will not release the information requested.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires BTP, when
refusing to provide the information requested, to serve you with a
notice which a) states that fact, b) specifies the exemption in question
and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies. This email serves as the notice.

The information is exempt by virtue of the following:

Section 23(1) Information supplied by or concerning certain Security
Bodies;

Section 24(1) National Security,

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement and

Section 38(1) Health and Safety.

Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption which means that the
legislators have identified there would be harm in disclosure of
information where this exemption is engaged and there is no requirement to
articulate the harm.

Sections 24, 31 and 38 are prejudice based qualified exemptions meaning
there is a requirement to evidence the harm in disclosure as well as
taking into account the public interest in disclosure.

Harm and Public Interest Considerations

Section 24

Terrorist activity within the United Kingdom is a real and current threat
and the Police Service has a duty of care to protect the public they
serve. To identify the locations where Section 44 Authorisations have
been or are in place would reveal sensitive tactical information.

Factors favouring Disclosure

By identifying specific locations which are subject to Section 44
authorisations would provide a better awareness to the public to enable
them to take steps in order to protect themselves.

Factors favouring Non-disclosure

Whilst there is a public interest in providing reassurance that the Police
Service is appropriately and effectively dealing with threats posed by
terrorist attack, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding
national security. Any disclosure has the potential to undermine ongoing
and future operations to protect the security of the United Kingdom which
would significantly increase the risk of harm to the community at large.

Section 31

The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and
detecting crime and protecting the passengers who use public transport.
Modern-day policing is intelligence led through liaison with other
agencies and the community at large. Section 44 authorisations are
identified by police forces using up-to-date intelligence. To identify the
specific location where these authorisations are or have been active would
reveal sensitive information concerning current policing operations to
interested parties, and enable any terrorist organisation to map such
activity and subsequently allow them to operate outside of those
particular areas.

Factors Favouring Disclosure

It could be argued that the transparency of anti-terror operations would
provide a greater awareness to the public which may lead to more
information (intelligence) being submitted to the Police Service.

Factors Favouring Non-disclosure

Anti-terror investigations and operations are a highly sensitive areas of
policing. As evidenced within the harm above, to identify the exact
location of these authorisations would seriously hinder the prevention or
detection of crime. If an ongoing anti-terror operation is compromised
this would lead to a further impact on police resources as there would be
a requirement for further manpower to be utilised in order to take steps
to continue with the planned operation. As stated above anti-terror
investigations would rely on intelligence received from the community and
other organisations. Disclosure would seriously undermine the partnership
approach to law enforcement.

Section 38

When Section 38 is engaged there must be `actual' evidence of the harm
that can be caused. To disclose information that undermines the
operational integrity of anti-terror operations will adversely affect
public safety. Examples of this are the events of 7th July 2005 and the
failed attempts in London and Glasgow on 30th June 2006, which were
clearly aimed at people using public transport.

Balancing Test

Public safety and the security of the country is of paramount importance
and the Police Service will not divulge information if to do so would
adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both National
Security and effective law enforcement. Therefore, at this moment in
time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for
disclosure is not made out.

The evidence supporting Section 44 authorisations are identified by police
forces using up-to-date intelligence. To identify the specific location
where these authorisations are or have been active would reveal sensitive
information concerning current policing operations to interested parties,
and enable any terrorist organisation to map such activity and
subsequently allow them to operate outside of those particular areas.

As laid down in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 you have the right to
ask British Transport Police to carry out an internal review if you are
not happy with the reply you have received. Should you wish to invoke
such a review please make you request to me stating what you would like
BTP to review. Although there is no set timescale laid down in the Act
for internal reviews, BTP aim to respond within 20 days, however, in more
complex cases this may take longer. If this is the case you will be
advised of the likely timescales involved.

If after the review is complete you are still not happy with BTP's
response you will then have the right to lodge a complaint with the
Information Commissioner's Office.

The Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House

Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Tel: 01625 545700
Fax: 01625 524510

Website: http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Brian Coleman

Information Standards Manager, Professional Standards Dept.

British Transport Police, FHQ, 25 Camden Road, London, NW1 9LN

office 020 7830 6751

mobile 0788 050 3079

fax 020 7023 6953

email [email address]

www.btp.police.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Mr Harding

9 January 2010

Dear British Transport Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of British Transport
Police's handling of my FOI request 'Terrorism Act 2000 Section
44', which has been rejected on the grounds of "national security".

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act erodes civil liberties in that the
police have additional powers to stop and search individuals and
vehicles without requiring just cause or suspicion. To withhold the
locations that are under Section 44 would be and is an intolerable
erosion of civil liberties.

Should I be stopped and searched by the police and request a reason
for this and it was claimed that the location I was in was
designated under the Terrorism Act, I would not know if this is
true or not if the police will not release in advance of where the
Act applies.

In short by having the ability to suspend basic human rights (the
right to liberty and the the right to peaceful enjoyment of your
property), the authorities should be transparent about the
locations where these rights are being suspended.

Furthermore the FoIA request also requested the number of locations
in Cheshire that were subject to Section 44 of the Act, and this
has not been released.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/te...

Yours faithfully,

Mr Harding

Link to this

From: Mr Harding

13 January 2010

Dear British Transport Police,

In support of my application for the release of the data requested,
I would like to add that the European Court of Human Rights found
against the Government in relation to the Terrorism Act 2000
(judgement at
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.a...).
In the case brought before the court, it was claimed that the stop
and search powers under Section 44-47 of the Terrorism Act are a
breach of Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights partly as the
legislation was freely accessible to the public but that the
authorisations and confirmations of Section 44-47 were not. The
alleged violation of Article 8 was upheld by the court and the
Government were ordered to pay damages.

Furthermore, it has become apparent that the Metropolitan Police
did release the area of their force that Section 44 did apply to,
and that this was under a “rolling programme” of confirmation.
Given that London would be arguably a greater terrorist target, it
would appear illogical if Section 44 notices applied to Cheshire
were with-held from the public, but that the Metropolitan Police
were happy to announce their locations designated under Section 44.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Harding

Link to this

From: Coleman, Brian
British Transport Police

15 January 2010

Dear Sir

Thank you for your email dated 9^th January 2010. Please accept this
email as confirmation of receipt asking for British Transport Police to
carry out an internal review into the decision to release the information
you requested. The review will be completed as quickly as possible.

You are of course correct that your original request did ask for the total
of areas actively designated under the legislation that the BTP are aware
of. Please accept my apologies that this was missed and British Transport
Police can advise that they are aware of three areas in Cheshire where an
authority to use Section 44 powers exist.

In respect of your comments about the decision by the European Court of
Human Rights, legal advice from the Home Office confirms that the current
s44 Authority remains in place and its use is legal pending any appeal by
the Government to the Grand Chamber of the European Court.

With regards to your assertion that the Metropolitan Police Service `did
release the area of their force that Section 44 did apply to, and that
this was under a "rolling programme" of confirmation' I have been unable
to locate this information. However, MPS did recently give a press
release which stated `'Over 100 areas across London are covered by the
Section 44 Authority. Providing specific details of the areas which are
covered by Section 44 would provide information useful to those who may
seek to cause harm, and damage our ability to protect all areas of London
whether they are covered by the Section 44 authority or not. The decision
as to whether an area is covered is based both on a need identified by the
borough and, in some cases, intelligence which we would never discuss.'

Regards

Brian Coleman BA MSc

Information Standards Manager, Professional Standards Dept.

British Transport Police, FHQ, 25 Camden Road, London, NW1 9LN

office 020 7830 6751

mobile 0788 050 3079

fax 020 7023 6953

email [email address]

www.btp.police.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Mr Harding

16 January 2010

Dear Brian Coleman,

Just to clarify the points you raised in your previous email.

My interpretation is that the judgement in the ECHR did find
against the Government on the fact that the implementation of the
legislation did violate Article 8 of the Human Rights Directive,
but the fact that the locations of Section 44 are with-held and not
released was just one part of the argument. It is obviously
anticipated that the Government will appeal, given that if they
don't a number of senior Government ministers would be suitably
embarrassed! The fact that the decision to find against the
Government, should not preclude any decision to disclose or
withhold this information, but I consider it to be a valid
supporting argument that the judgement shows that ECHR believe that
completely withholding all locations is not compatible with the
Human Rights Directive.

The Metropolitan Police disclosed their Section 44 coverage in the
domestic and European court cases concerning Gillan and Quinton, as
documented in the ECHR judgement.

I can understand certain locations being withheld for a short
period of time, if they are subject to particular intelligence
obtained recently, but I contend that these must be the exception
and not the rule.

I await your findings of the Internal Review.

Kind Regards,

Mr Harding

Link to this

From: Duffy, Rosemarie
British Transport Police

4 February 2010


Attachment 256 Harding.doc
196K Download View as HTML


SENT ON BEHALF OF DCS CARROLL, HEAD OF BTP PSD

Dear Mr Harding

Please find attached a letter re the above.

Kind regards

Rosemarie

Rosemarie J Duffy

Professional Standards Department

PA to DCS E Carroll, Head of PSD

DSU A Gent, Head of Investigations & Intelligence

British Transport Police, 25 Camden Road, London NW1 9LN

Tel: 0207 830 8855

Fax: 0207 830 6723

Email: [1][email address]

www. btp.police.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
British Transport Police only: