317:
90:
24:
312:
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.
371:
an unreasonable burden to expect citizens to bear in the interests of improving the prospects of preventing or detecting terrorist outrages. In those circumstances, the port questioning and associated search powers represent a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community at large and are thus not an unlawful breach of article 8.
414:
that a violation of
Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) had occurred. The Court "considered that there was no need to examine the applicant's complaint under Article 5 as it was based on the same facts as her Article 8 complaint." The Court's central complaint was that there were
311:
146. It is one thing to conclude that the
Schedule 7 powers of examination neither engage nor violate a defendant’s Art. 6 rights; it is another to conclude that there is no room for improvement. For our part, we would urge those concerned to consider a legislative amendment, introducing a statutory
370:
51. Overall, the level of intrusion into the privacy of the individual is, for the reasons which have been explained above, comparatively light and not beyond the Page 23 reasonable expectations of those who travel across the UK’s international borders. Given the safeguards set out above, it is not
345:
It was held that although the power to detain a person for six hours falls within the scope of
Article 5(1)(b) of the Convention this "was for no longer than was necessary for the completion of the process. There was no requirement to attend a police station. Accordingly, there was in this case no
415:"insufficient safeguards" to Schedule 7 such that, "considered together with the absence of any requirement of “reasonable suspicion”, the Court found that at the time the applicant had been stopped the Schedule 7 powers had not been “in accordance with the law”.
294:
Beghal pleaded guilty to the offence under
Schedule 7, Paragraph 18(1)(a) before District Judge Temperley at Leicester Magistrates' Court on 12 December 2011. She appealed to the High Court by way of Case Stated.
261:
Beghal refused to answer most of the questions and was charged with willfully failing to comply with the requirement to answer questions under
Schedule 7, Paragraph 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Schedule 7).
644:
265:
Although Beghal pleaded guilty to this offence and received a conditional discharge she brought proceedings arguing that the police powers under
Schedule 7 breached her rights under Articles 5 (
839:
692:
975:
970:
965:
960:
955:
950:
945:
940:
935:
930:
925:
920:
915:
910:
905:
900:
882:
227:
399:
Lawyers for Mrs Beghal indicated that although she was disappointed with the ruling she welcomed Lord Kerr's "blistering" dissent and indicated that they would pursue the case at the
316:
562:
808:
682:
270:
266:
205:
201:
1117:
661:
637:
258:
whereby no reasonable suspicion of past or future offences is required, documents can be copied and retained and individuals can be detained for a maximum of six hours.
816:
366:
While it was held that there was an interference with Beghal's right to privacy this was found to be justified in accordance with
Article 8(2). Lord Hughes concluded:
822:
739:
630:
1127:
749:
354:
Article 6 was found to have no application in this case because answers given under a
Schedule 7 interview would be inadmissible as per section 78 of the
980:
714:
235:
1122:
1001:
724:
334:
478:
151:
855:
828:
617:
867:
678:
45:
849:
744:
709:
653:
427:
278:
231:
100:
996:
442:
1018:
67:
355:
250:. In January 2011 she was returning from visiting her husband in Paris when the police stopped her as she was passing through
1132:
1078:
400:
380:
Lord Kerr would have found the
Schedule 7 provisions to be incompatible with Articles 5, 6 and 8 for the following reasons:
89:
1006:
782:
734:
729:
1023:
1011:
861:
38:
32:
1028:
754:
432:
1069:
1040:
688:
49:
719:
418:
As of March 2019, the UK remains in breach of the Convention and has yet to amend the offending legislation.
1057:
390:
There is not a proper balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the wider community.
563:"Supreme Court justice makes 'blistering attack' on police power to stop and question under Terrorism Act"
321:
251:
612:
549:
537:
525:
513:
501:
489:
136:
1083:
304:
1033:
255:
213:
167:
788:
384:
The powers are not 'in accordance with the law' given the potential for their arbitrary use.
1074:
274:
209:
464:
622:
407:
1111:
437:
387:
The powers go beyond what is necessary to accomplish the aim of combatting terrorism.
337:
delivered the leading judgment and dealt with the three Convention articles in turn.
247:
1045:
776:
584:
411:
1062:
1050:
1089:
303:
Beghal's appeal under articles 5, 6 and 8 were all dismissed. However
410:
with much of the Supreme Court's majority analysis and unanimously
333:
The Supreme Court dismissed Beghal's appeal by a majority of 4-1.
315:
111:
Beghal (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
626:
17:
254:. They questioned her under Schedule 7, Paragraph 2 of the
883:
List of judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
406:
On 28 February 2019, the European Court of Human Rights
989:
893:
877:
838:
807:
798:
767:
702:
671:
660:
195:
187:
179:
174:
157:
147:
142:
132:
124:
116:
106:
96:
82:
368:
309:
638:
8:
804:
668:
645:
631:
623:
88:
79:
1118:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases
236:powers of the police in England and Wales
68:Learn how and when to remove this message
585:"HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights"
183:Lords Neuberger, Dyson, Hughes and Hodge
31:This article includes a list of general
460:
458:
454:
1100:Justices shown in order of appointment
474:
472:
7:
817:The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
465:Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000
654:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
565:. Scottish Legal News. 23 July 2015
428:European Convention on Human Rights
279:European Convention on Human Rights
232:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
101:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
1128:Human rights in the United Kingdom
443:Human rights in the United Kingdom
37:it lacks sufficient corresponding
14:
1019:Judiciaries of the United Kingdom
1002:House of Lords judicial functions
823:The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
350:Article 6 (Right to a fair trial)
740:Lord Stephens of Creevyloughgare
356:Police and Criminal Evidence Act
22:
1123:2015 in United Kingdom case law
1079:Secretary of State for Justice
401:European Court of Human Rights
1:
856:The Baroness Hale of Richmond
829:The Baroness Hale of Richmond
320:Mrs Beghal was questioned at
246:Sylvie Beghal is the wife of
1007:List of House of Lords cases
362:Article 8 (Right to Privacy)
341:Article 5 (Right to Liberty)
1024:Courts of England and Wales
750:Lord Richards of Camberwell
1149:
1029:Courts of Northern Ireland
850:The Lord Hope of Craighead
679:The Lord Reed of Allermuir
433:Anti-terrorism legislation
1098:
1070:Law officers of the Crown
1041:Law of the United Kingdom
715:Lord Briggs of Westbourne
200:
162:
87:
1058:Law of Northern Ireland
375:
166:, the powers under the
52:more precise citations.
745:Lady Rose of Colmworth
725:Lord Hamblen of Kersey
613:Supreme Court judgment
395:Reaction and aftermath
373:
346:breach of article 5."
325:
314:
1133:East Midlands Airport
618:Video of the judgment
322:East Midlands Airport
319:
271:right to a fair trial
252:East Midlands Airport
289:
1084:Middlesex Guildhall
376:Lord Kerr's dissent
307:did conclude that:
120:12–13 November 2014
1034:Courts of Scotland
589:hudoc.echr.coe.int
326:
305:Lord Justice Gross
290:Magistrates' Court
256:Terrorism Act 2000
214:Terrorism Act 2000
170:are proportionate.
168:Terrorism Act 2000
1105:
1104:
889:
888:
763:
762:
479:EWHC 2573 (Admin)
219:
218:
152:EWHC 2573 (Admin)
78:
77:
70:
1140:
805:
710:Lord Lloyd-Jones
693:Deputy President
669:
647:
640:
633:
624:
600:
599:
597:
595:
581:
575:
574:
572:
570:
559:
553:
547:
541:
535:
529:
523:
517:
511:
505:
499:
493:
487:
481:
476:
467:
462:
275:right to privacy
267:right to liberty
164:Appeal dismissed
133:Neutral citation
92:
80:
73:
66:
62:
59:
53:
48:this article by
39:inline citations
26:
25:
18:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1101:
1094:
1075:Lord Chancellor
985:
885:
873:
841:
834:
800:
794:
769:
759:
698:
663:
656:
651:
609:
604:
603:
593:
591:
583:
582:
578:
568:
566:
561:
560:
556:
548:
544:
536:
532:
524:
520:
512:
508:
500:
496:
488:
484:
477:
470:
463:
456:
451:
424:
397:
378:
364:
352:
343:
331:
301:
292:
287:
244:
210:Article 8, ECHR
206:Article 6, ECHR
202:Article 5, ECHR
74:
63:
57:
54:
44:Please help to
43:
27:
23:
12:
11:
5:
1146:
1144:
1136:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1110:
1109:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1092:
1087:
1081:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1060:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1009:
999:
993:
991:
987:
986:
984:
983:
978:
973:
968:
963:
958:
953:
948:
943:
938:
933:
928:
923:
918:
913:
908:
903:
897:
895:
891:
890:
887:
886:
881:
879:
875:
874:
872:
871:
865:
862:The Lord Mance
859:
853:
846:
844:
836:
835:
833:
832:
826:
820:
813:
811:
802:
796:
795:
793:
792:
786:
780:
773:
771:
765:
764:
761:
760:
758:
757:
752:
747:
742:
737:
732:
727:
722:
717:
712:
706:
704:
700:
699:
697:
696:
686:
675:
673:
666:
658:
657:
652:
650:
649:
642:
635:
627:
621:
620:
615:
608:
607:External links
605:
602:
601:
576:
554:
542:
530:
518:
506:
494:
482:
468:
453:
452:
450:
447:
446:
445:
440:
435:
430:
423:
420:
396:
393:
392:
391:
388:
385:
377:
374:
363:
360:
351:
348:
342:
339:
330:
327:
300:
297:
291:
288:
286:
283:
281:(Convention).
243:
240:
217:
216:
198:
197:
193:
192:
189:
185:
184:
181:
177:
176:
172:
171:
160:
159:
155:
154:
149:
145:
144:
140:
139:
134:
130:
129:
126:
122:
121:
118:
114:
113:
108:
107:Full case name
104:
103:
98:
94:
93:
85:
84:
76:
75:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1145:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1126:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1113:
1097:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1030:
1027:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
994:
992:
988:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
954:
952:
949:
947:
944:
942:
939:
937:
934:
932:
929:
927:
924:
922:
919:
917:
914:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
898:
896:
892:
884:
880:
876:
869:
866:
863:
860:
857:
854:
851:
848:
847:
845:
843:
837:
830:
827:
824:
821:
818:
815:
814:
812:
810:
806:
803:
797:
790:
787:
784:
781:
778:
775:
774:
772:
766:
756:
753:
751:
748:
746:
743:
741:
738:
736:
733:
731:
728:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
708:
707:
705:
701:
694:
690:
687:
684:
680:
677:
676:
674:
670:
667:
665:
659:
655:
648:
643:
641:
636:
634:
629:
628:
625:
619:
616:
614:
611:
610:
606:
590:
586:
580:
577:
564:
558:
555:
551:
546:
543:
539:
534:
531:
527:
522:
519:
515:
510:
507:
503:
498:
495:
491:
486:
483:
480:
475:
473:
469:
466:
461:
459:
455:
448:
444:
441:
439:
438:Djamel Beghal
436:
434:
431:
429:
426:
425:
421:
419:
416:
413:
409:
404:
402:
394:
389:
386:
383:
382:
381:
372:
367:
361:
359:
357:
349:
347:
340:
338:
336:
329:Supreme Court
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
306:
298:
296:
284:
282:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
259:
257:
253:
249:
248:Djamel Beghal
241:
239:
237:
233:
229:
228:2015 judgment
225:
224:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:Case opinions
173:
169:
165:
161:
156:
153:
150:
148:Prior history
146:
141:
138:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
99:
95:
91:
86:
81:
72:
69:
61:
51:
47:
41:
40:
34:
29:
20:
19:
16:
997:Constitution
791:(since 2020)
783:Mark Ormerod
735:Lord Burrows
730:Lord Leggatt
592:. Retrieved
588:
579:
567:. Retrieved
557:
545:
533:
521:
509:
497:
485:
417:
405:
398:
379:
369:
365:
353:
344:
332:
310:
302:
293:
264:
260:
245:
223:Beghal v DPP
222:
221:
220:
163:
143:Case history
128:22 July 2015
110:
83:Beghal v DPP
64:
55:
36:
15:
1046:English law
870:(2018–2020)
864:(2017–2018)
858:(2013–2017)
852:(2009–2013)
831:(2017–2020)
825:(2012–2017)
819:(2009–2012)
785:(2015–2020)
779:(2009–2015)
755:Lady Simler
335:Lord Hughes
234:concerning
196:Area of law
58:August 2015
50:introducing
1112:Categories
1086:(location)
777:Jenny Rowe
720:Lord Sales
689:Lord Hodge
672:Leadership
449:References
299:High Court
33:references
1063:Scots law
1051:Welsh law
1012:Law Lords
894:Judgments
868:Lord Reed
842:President
809:President
789:Vicky Fox
770:Executive
683:President
569:20 August
408:disagreed
277:) of the
273:) and 8 (
191:Lord Kerr
1090:UKSCblog
801:justices
664:justices
594:17 March
422:See also
285:Judgment
180:Majority
990:Related
662:Current
550:UKSC 49
538:UKSC 49
526:UKSC 49
514:UKSC 49
502:UKSC 49
490:UKSC 49
230:of the
188:Dissent
158:Holding
137:UKSC 49
125:Decided
46:improve
878:Judges
840:Deputy
799:Former
703:Judges
269:), 6 (
226:was a
117:Argued
35:, but
768:Chief
412:found
242:Facts
97:Court
1077:and
981:List
976:2024
971:2023
966:2022
961:2021
956:2020
951:2019
946:2018
941:2017
936:2016
931:2015
926:2014
921:2013
916:2012
911:2011
906:2010
901:2009
596:2019
571:2015
1114::
587:.
552:,
540:,
528:,
516:,
504:,
492:,
471:^
457:^
403:.
358:.
238:.
212:;
208:;
204:;
695:)
691:(
685:)
681:(
646:e
639:t
632:v
598:.
573:.
324:.
71:)
65:(
60:)
56:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
