Adam Fresco and Fiona Hamilton

Police are planning to use an anti-terror law deemed unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights across the country during the London Olympics, The Times has learnt.

Senior officers are considering using Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at every Underground and railway station nationwide.

Privacy campaigners criticised the proposal yesterday. The powers would enable police to stop and search members of the public without any suspicion that they were involved in terrorism.

The Times understands that this would be the first time that the powers would have been used across such a wide area. Police said that Section 44, which must be granted by the Home Secretary for a designated area, would be used only in the event of an escalated terror threat. Officers are being trained to use behavioural profiling to spot suspicious characters during stop- and-search operations.

Privacy experts said that the plan could heighten tensions between the public and police. Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, said: “The history of stop and search in this country is abhorrent. I wouldn’t trust the police to make the right judgment.

“It is well known that stop-and- search powers have created extraordinary tensions among a range of ethnic groups,” he said. “There’s no doubt that extension of the use of those powers would exacerbate those tensions.”

Last month the use of the terror law was criticised by the European Court of Human Rights. It found that Section 44 violated individual freedoms guaranteeing the right to private life.

The court said that the power to search an individual’s clothing and belongings in public involved an element of humiliation that was a clear interference with the right to privacy. Judges also attacked the arbitrary nature of the power as well as the way in which its use was authorised.

Despite this, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said that police would continue to use Section 44. The Home Office is appealing against the European Court ruling.

The Metropolitan Police agreed last year to limit its use of the powers after critics claimed that it was discriminating against minority groups. However, Assistant Chief Constable Steve Thomas, of the British Transport Police, told The Times that the powers would be considered for 2012.

Mr Thomas, the Olympic National Transport Security Co-ordinator for the Home Office, said: “If there is a severe level of threat we will be looking to use Section 44 at every Underground and railway station. We are planning on the assumption that there will be a severe threat to the UK during the Games, on the basis that we can then scale down rather than quickly scale up.” He said that if Section 44 was put in place across the country it would not mean that every station would be flooded with officers, but individual stations would be targeted as part of an operation.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, the campaigning organisation that brought the European Court case, said that while there was an obvious need for heightened precautions during the 2012 Games, Britain’s antiterrorism laws need to be “tightened up”. She said: “It would be incredibly dangerous to build Olympic security on such a legally flawed foundation.”

Judges in Strasbourg say UK powers under Terrorism Act 2000 violate convention on human rights

• Alan Travis, home affairs editor
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 13.36 GMT
• Article history

A stop and search operation in London: the powers, under the Terrorism Act, have been ruled illegal by a European court. Photograph: Martin Godwin/Guardian

The ability of UK police to use "arbitrary" counter-terror stop and search powers against peace protesters and photographers lay in tatters today after a landmark ruling by the European court of human rights.

The Strasbourg court ruled it was unlawful for police to use the powers, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, to stop and search people without needing any grounds for suspicion.

The widely-drawn ruling said that not only the use of the counter-terror powers, but also the way they were authorised, were "neither sufficiently circumscribed, nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse".

The use of these powers has grown fourfold, from 33,177 times in 2004 to more than 117,200 in 2008.

The Metropolitan police have used them most, but 11 other forces in England and Wales also make routine use of them.

A political furore ensued when it was disclosed that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion since 2001.

The case ruled on today was brought by Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton, who were stopped by police while their way to a demonstration outside the annual arms fair at the Excel centre, in London's Docklands, in September 2003.

Quinton, a journalist, was ordered to stop filming the protest despite showing her press card, while Gillan, who was riding his bicycle, was only allowed to go on his way after 20 minutes. They were awarded €33,850 (£30,400) in costs and expenses.

The European judges said the power to search a person's clothing and belongings in public included an element of humiliation and embarrassment which was a clear interference with the right to privacy.

But they also criticised the way in which the police use of stop and search powers was authorised. There is no requirement that the powers be considered "necessary" – only "expedient".

The use of the powers is subject to confirmation by the home secretary within 48 hours, renewable after 28 days, but the European court said there was no real check on authorisations by parliament or the courts.

This was demonstrated by the continuous renewal, every 28 days, of the use of the powers in London since their first introduction, the judges added.

They said they were further concerned that the decision to stop and search somebody was "based exclusively on the 'hunch' or 'professional intuition' of the police officer".

The sole condition was that the search had to look for articles used in connection with terrorism – but this covered many things commonly carried by people in the street. Police did not even have to have grounds for suspecting such articles were present.

The judges said that, because of this, there was a "clear risk of arbitrariness in granting such broad discretion" to a police officer.

Their concerns were compounded by the fact that black and Asian people were four times more likely to be stopped under section 44 and there was a risk that the power could be misused against demonstrators.

"The absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion made it almost impossible to prove that the power had been improperly exercised," the judges said in describing the lack of judicial checks.

As such, section 44 was not in "accordance with the law" and amounted to a violation of article eight – the right to respect for private and family life.

Quinton told the Guardian she was delighted with the judgment, saying: "There has to be a balance between private life and security.

"The court has shown that section 44 is an invasion of people's right to liberty and privacy. Hopefully the government will have to put a fairer law in place to protect us."

Gillan hailed the ruling as "fantastic news after a long struggle" and added: "I look to the government for a strong response."

Corinna Ferguson, the legal officer for Liberty and acting for the two, said: "Liberty has consistently warned the government about the dangers of stop and search without suspicion and actively campaigned for the tightening up of the infamous section 44 power.

"The public, police and court of human rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law.

"In the coming weeks parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."

The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, said: "We have long said that anti-terror laws should not be used as a way of conducting normal day-to-day policing.

"The government needs to make sure that the police have the appropriate powers to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour."

The full judgment can be read here.

By Holden Frith | 07 January 2010

We're used to the idea that airport security is reactive - that liquid bombs beget liquid bans and shoe-bomb plots lead to scanning of shoes - but there's something odd about the new restrictions on flights to the US.

The pat-down search and swabbing of hand luggage make sense, and I presume that the security personnel who process passengers are looking for signs of anxiety as well as unexplained bulges. What seems less logical are the rules that govern the last hour of the flight, during which time passengers can't go to the toilet, use a blanket or read a book or magazine.

Yes, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab prepared his bomb in the bathroom and tried to detonate it under a blanket, and yes, he tried to do so in the last hour of the flight to Detroit, but who's to say that the next bomber will work to the same timetable? My own recent flight to Las Vegas had been over US soil for at least two hours before the new restrictions came into effect.

If granting us blankets and books is too risky for the last hour of the flight, why is it safe until then? If the risk is the same throughout the flight - and a bomb is surely no safer at 38,000 feet than it is at half that altitude - then the reason we're allowed to empty our bladders and cover our laps for most of the flight must be convenience. Even Ryanair would baulk at the prospect of putting its passengers in nappies.

We trade the marginal extra security we might gain from these rules for convenience and dignity. That's a sensible trade-off, but it strips away the logic of imposing the rules in the last hour of the flight. Since we were told in advance that the toilets will be off limits, and given time to make the necessary arrangements, any bomber among us would have known that he had to complete his mission at least 61 minutes before landing.

So scan us all before we board, and search our luggage as carefully as you can, but then have faith in your own security and let us open our books as we're coming in to land. I'm happy to take that risk.

Anti-terrorism police twice stopped painter near airport

Guardian goes painting after learning how officers confronted Liam O'Farrell while watercolouring scene near City airport

• Peter Walker and Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 17.40 GMT
• Article history

A watercolour by Liam O'Farrell, the artist who came under police suspicion for painting outdoors Photograph: Liam O'Farrell

Taking a photograph in a public place has become the quickest way to attract police attention, as increasing numbers of photographers can verify. But now it has emerged that anti-terrorism officers are uneasy about a far less sophisticated piece of surveillance technology: the watercolour brush and canvas.

Liam O'Farrell, an artist who exhibited at this year's Royal Academy summer show, has described how he had been questioned and searched by police twice inside a week while painting a scene close to City airport in east London.

The artist contacted the Guardian following a series of incidents in Britain in which photographers, tourists and students were stopped under anti-terrorism laws.

The situation was highlighted in last Saturday's Guardian when a reporter, Paul Lewis, described being questioned within two minutes of taking photographs of the Gherkin building in the City of London.

In a similar spirit of inquiry, Lewis went to the London Eye, central London, today armed with an easel, canvas and acrylic paints.

What O'Farrell called, perhaps inevitably, his "brush with the police", began when he set up his equipment on a grass bank adjoining a public road just south of City airport. With his back to the complex he set about painting a composite scene of terrace houses and the Tate & Lyle sugar factory a few streets away.

Inside half an hour two Metropolitan police officers from the specialist unit based at the airport arrived in a patrol car and demanded to know what he was doing, saying he had been spotted on a CCTV camera.

"I told them, 'I'm hardly a terrorist, I'm watercolouring'. One policeman said, 'you're not painting the airport, are you?' I told him I was painting the sugar factory. He said 'no one paints factories'. I told him Lowry painted loads of factories and made a mint. He got a bit touchy then."

For 15 minutes, O'Farrell said, one officer checked his identification on a radio while another searched his bag. "They said I had 'weird paraphernalia' with me. I said 'it's a flask of coffee and an iPod'."

O'Farrell said he had returned to the same spot a week later to complete the work and was interrogated again, by two other officers.

"I told them I was just doing a watercolour of the sugar factory. One of them said 'no one does watercolours of factories'. I told them about Lowry – it was groundhog day. It was extraordinary.

"Then one said 'I can see what you're doing now, I'd be a bit more concerned if you were painting the airport'. I remember from my art history that centuries ago in China artists were murdered in case they [painted] maps and roads. But in the days of digital photography I hardly think a watercolourist painting an airport would be some sort of international threat." The experience left him baffled. "I've been painting in Moscow, in Vietnam, Ukraine, and all I get round me are bunches of kids. If the police come by they're just curious about the painting. It's extraordinary what happened to me."

The incident took place in the summer of 2007, O'Farrell said, and he was prompted to write after hearing about recent events.

A spokesman said the Met's assistant commissioner, John Yates, had reminded officers last week that they should not stop photographers without reason. "Anyone could imagine why an airport is seen as a sensitive site, but we are aware that there are issues of communication with officers about what they can and can't do, which is why John Yates has taken these measures," he said.

Today the advice was seemingly being heeded. The Guardian's reporter spent a couple of hours creating his rendition of the London Eye on a winter afternoon, and, barring a polite request from a security guard to move to a different section of the riverside thoroughfare, received no official attention whatsoever. The only other interest came from tourists keen to see the work's progress.

Assistant commissioner John Yates issues reminder that no laws prevent people from photographing buildings

• Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 December 2009 20.38 GMT
• Article history

John Yates, the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner. Photograph: Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images

Scotland Yard has told police officers there is "an enormous amount of concern" about the use of anti-terror laws against people taking photographs in the street.

In a circular to all Metropolitan borough commanders, John Yates, the assistant commissioner for specialist operations, advocated a "commonsense" approach and reminded officers there were no laws to stop people photographing buildings.

"Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped," wrote Yates, who is Britain's senior counter-terrorism officer.

He noted complaints from members of the public, many of whom had been stopped under the Terrorism Act. Section 44 says police do not need suspicion to stop and search people within certain designated areas.

"The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or police community support officers, and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious," Yates said. "An enormous amount of concern has been generated about these matters."

"These are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense."

There has been criticsm of alleged harassment of photographers. Last week the Guardian was stopped by police under section 44, after photographing the Gherkin building in the City to test how the law was being applied.

Much of the criticism has been directed at City of London police, which has jurisdication over the Square Mile. It responded today with a publicity drive to remind the public that terrorist reconnaissance poses a real threat.

In an unprecedented step, the force released footage that senior officers said might have been "hostile reconnaissance" for a terrorist attack. Footage shot on an Algerian's Nokia N95 mobile phone showed he had recorded railway and tube stations and shopping centres.

The Algerian was stopped by an officer at Liverpool Street station in July last year. He had appeared furtive, holding the camera at chest height and using his hand to obscure the red recording light.

Counter-terrorism police and MI5 discovered that the man and his brother, in their 40s, entered Britain on false passports and had spent years committing credit card fraud. Material supporting al-Qaida in the Maghreb was found at one property in the inquiry, police said. The men were charged with fraud, sentenced to up to two years' jail and deported.

Police sources said they were not charged with terrorism offences because the law was being challenged in the Lords and fraud carried similar penalties. But the CPS said there was "insufficient evidence to charge the suspect in relation to terrorism offences".

Assistant commissioner Frank Armstrong said: "The Square Mile is still very much a target. One of our main priorities is clearly counter-terrorism. We train our officers and encourage them to do a lot of stop and search. I would argue we have got the politest police force in the country."

Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws

Don’t use anti-terror laws to prevent pictures being taken, officers told

By Jerome Taylor and Mark Hughes

Saturday, 5 December 2009

Police forces across the country have been warned to stop using anti-terror laws to question and search innocent photographers after The Independent forced senior officers to admit that the controversial legislation is being widely misused.

The strongly worded warning was circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) last night. In an email sent to the chief constables of England and Wales's 43 police forces, officers were advised that Section 44 powers should not be used unnecessarily against photographers. The message says: "Officers and community support officers are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos. Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional, is unacceptable."

Chief Constable Andy Trotter, chairman of Acpo's media advisory group, took the decision to send the warning after growing criticism of the police's treatment of photographers.

Writing in today's Independent, he says: "Everyone... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."

He added: "We need to make sure that our officers and Police Community Support Officers [PCSOs] are not unnecessarily targeting photographers just because they are going about their business. The last thing in the world we want to do is give photographers a hard time or alienate the public. We need the public to help us.

"Photographers should be left alone to get on with what they are doing. If an officer is suspicious of them for some reason they can just go up to them and have a chat with them – use old-fashioned policing skills to be frank – rather than using these powers, which we don't want to over-use at all."

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows the police to stop and search anyone they want, without need for suspicion, in a designated area. The exact locations of many of these areas are kept secret from the public, but are thought to include every railway station in and well-known tourist landmarks thought to be at risk of terrorist attacks.

Many photographers have complained that officers are stopping them in the mistaken belief that the legislation prohibits photographs in those areas. Forces who use Section 44, most commonly London's Metropolitan Police, have repeatedly briefed and guided frontline officers on how to use the powers without offending the public.

But privately senior officers are "exasperated, depressed and embarrassed" by the actions of junior officers and, particularly, PCSOs who routinely misuse the legislation. One source said that an "internal urban myth" had built up around police officers who believe that photography in Section 44 areas is not allowed.

The aberrations have resulted in nearly 100 complaints to the police watchdog. Since April 2008 every complaint made by a member of the public about the use of Section 44 powers, unlike other complaints, must be forwarded to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In the past 18 months there have been 94 complaints. Eight of these specifically mentioned the fact that the issue arose around photography. Acpo's communiqué has been welcomed by rank-and-file police officers and photographers alike.

Simon Reed, the chairman of the Police Federation, which represents England and Wales's 140,000 rank-and-file officers, said: "I think some new guidance will be welcome."

New orders: The message to officers

This is the message circulated by Andy Trotter, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to police forces in England and Wales.

"Officers and PCSOs are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos.

"There are very clear rules around how stop-and-search powers can be used. However, there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.

"We need to co-operate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.

"We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.

"However, unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and worse still, it undermines public confidence in the police service."

A personal viewpoint: 'I was reminded why I left the police'

I spent 27 years as a PC in the Met, but it was during a trip to my old police station with a friend late last year that I was starkly reminded why I eventually decided to leave.

Since 2003 I have been living in France, where I coach a children's rugby team not far from Toulouse. But last December my sister needed to see a specialist in Harley Street so I went with her and a rugby friend of mine back to London for the week.

While my sister went to the doctors I suggested to my friend, Will, that we should go and take a look at Albany Street police station near Regent's Park, which was where I spent my first eight years as a copper.

It's the kind of station that looks like something out of Dixon of Dock Green, it has a lovely little blue police light outside the entrance and I asked Will whether he'd take a picture of me standing underneath it. Within seconds we found ourselves approached by two PCSOs who told us that we were not allowed to take photographs of police stations.

I didn't want to be a sad old git by telling stories of my past and the nostalgia I felt for the place. So instead I said: "We're tourists. We want a picture of that Blue lamp, it's iconic and it represents London bobbies." But they didn't want any of it and ordered us to stop taking photographs. The second PCSO started asking Will for his details which he began to give before I informed him that he was under no obligation to do so.

I'd clearly failed what the police call "the attitude test" because they radioed for back-up from inside the police station and we were soon joined by a police constable. Often during my time as a policeman I would hear this policy. If someone was bolshy, argumentative or challenging in any manner, refusing to play by the police rules and not willing to show deference, then they had failed the "attitude test".

I guess I hoped the PC would show more common sense but he repeated the same line, that the police station was in a "sensitive zone" and that we had to stop taking photographs. Eventually we gave up and walked away.