This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/28/human-rights-appeal-airport-detention

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
High court rejects human rights appeal over airport detention High court rejects human rights appeal over airport detention
(21 days later)
Three high court judges have said there is room for improvement in the operation of counter-terror powers used by police special branch officers to stop, question and detain 70,000 people a year passing through Britain's airports and ports.Three high court judges have said there is room for improvement in the operation of counter-terror powers used by police special branch officers to stop, question and detain 70,000 people a year passing through Britain's airports and ports.
The remarks were made in a ruling dismissing a human rights appeal brought by Sylvie Beghal, a French Muslim woman living in Britain, against her conviction for refusing to comply with schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.The remarks were made in a ruling dismissing a human rights appeal brought by Sylvie Beghal, a French Muslim woman living in Britain, against her conviction for refusing to comply with schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
She was stopped at East Midlands airport in January 2011 and refused to answer some questions about her "possible involvement in terrorism" until her lawyer arrived. She was returning from France where she had visited her husband who was in custody in relation to terrorist offences.She was stopped at East Midlands airport in January 2011 and refused to answer some questions about her "possible involvement in terrorism" until her lawyer arrived. She was returning from France where she had visited her husband who was in custody in relation to terrorist offences.
The same schedule 7 powers were used this month to detain David Miranda, partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for nine hours at Heathrow airport.The same schedule 7 powers were used this month to detain David Miranda, partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for nine hours at Heathrow airport.
Lord Justice Gross, giving the judgment of the court, urged the home secretary and parliament to consider amending the counter-terrorism laws to introduce a statutory bar on the use of any admissions made during such airport examinations in a subsequent criminal trial.Lord Justice Gross, giving the judgment of the court, urged the home secretary and parliament to consider amending the counter-terrorism laws to introduce a statutory bar on the use of any admissions made during such airport examinations in a subsequent criminal trial.
The home secretary, Theresa May, has already proposed to introduce stronger safeguards over the use of schedule 7, the most widely drawn stop and search powers left in the police armoury. The powers allow the police and intelligence services to detain any passenger for up to nine hours to determine whether they are involved in terrorism.The home secretary, Theresa May, has already proposed to introduce stronger safeguards over the use of schedule 7, the most widely drawn stop and search powers left in the police armoury. The powers allow the police and intelligence services to detain any passenger for up to nine hours to determine whether they are involved in terrorism.
Passengers can be targeted without the need for any reasonable grounds for suspicion of their involvement and the powers can be exercised without some of the key safeguards available to suspects held at police stations, such as a caution and the presence of a lawyer.Passengers can be targeted without the need for any reasonable grounds for suspicion of their involvement and the powers can be exercised without some of the key safeguards available to suspects held at police stations, such as a caution and the presence of a lawyer.
Beghal was given a 12-month conditional discharge after she pleaded guilty to failing to comply with schedule 7. The counter-terror law specifies that people held under this power "must give the examining officer any information in his or her possession which the officer requests".Beghal was given a 12-month conditional discharge after she pleaded guilty to failing to comply with schedule 7. The counter-terror law specifies that people held under this power "must give the examining officer any information in his or her possession which the officer requests".
Beghal, who was travelling with her three children, was asked about her relationship with her husband, details of her family, who was meeting her at the airport, whether she had been arrested, whether she was French/Algerian and how she had paid for her flight, among other questions.Beghal, who was travelling with her three children, was asked about her relationship with her husband, details of her family, who was meeting her at the airport, whether she had been arrested, whether she was French/Algerian and how she had paid for her flight, among other questions.
The three judges – Lord Justice Gross with Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Foskett – rejected her claim that her human rights had been violated, saying schedule 7 powers were neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.The three judges – Lord Justice Gross with Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Foskett – rejected her claim that her human rights had been violated, saying schedule 7 powers were neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.
"The balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question," said Gross."The balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question," said Gross.
But he said that did not mean there was no room for improvement in the law. "For our part, we would urge those concerned to consider a legislative amendment, introducing a statutory bar to the introduction of schedule 7 admissions in a subsequent criminal trial.But he said that did not mean there was no room for improvement in the law. "For our part, we would urge those concerned to consider a legislative amendment, introducing a statutory bar to the introduction of schedule 7 admissions in a subsequent criminal trial.
"The terms of any such legislation would require careful reflection, having regard to the legitimate interests of all parties but, given the sensitivities to which the schedule 7 powers give rise, there would be at least apparent attraction in clarifying legislation putting the matter beyond doubt.""The terms of any such legislation would require careful reflection, having regard to the legitimate interests of all parties but, given the sensitivities to which the schedule 7 powers give rise, there would be at least apparent attraction in clarifying legislation putting the matter beyond doubt."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.