I think they "began" long before they stopped him, otherwise they wouldn't have known to stop him.
During the nine hours, this "preliminary assessment" was begun.
As I understand it, he could have been held up to 24 hours without charge if it looked like there was going to something to charge him with ... or, if he was genuinely suspected of something under the Terrorism Act, for up to 14 days.

But they released him after the nine hours, not even on bail, to carry on to Brazil.

No one can ever know unles they see the material, and they are unlikely to make it public at this stage, to say the least. But that doesn't detract from this discussion forum; the wild speculation and politically motivated comments (from either side ) provide huge entertainment to readers like me.

They may be, but Miranda wasn't. If you want to be clever, at least bother to get a basic understanding of how Schedule 7 works. Specifically, examination under these provisions is N*O*T based on"suspicion of commission of an offence", but to ascertain if the person examined is or has been concerned in terrorism. It is a major distinction that you need to grasp.

The whole point of that is so that someone detained for examination cannot later argue that there were no grounds for suspecting them, and thus that the process was unlawful.

Now, if you wanted to contend that surely that's a mechanism for purely arbitrary stops, or else could be used to target (say) an ethnic group, well, er, yes, and indeed I believe there are a number of cases heading for Europe on just that point, but I'm simply talking about the situation as it is.


And how do you bail someone who is not actually in the UK, then? But as you are utterly confusing this situation with that of a person arrested under UK domestic law, I won't add to your woes. Come back when you've mugged up, if you like.

You don';t understand it correctly. Schedule 7 provides up to 9 hours and that's it.


As above, bail don't enter into it.

Look, I'm bored of this. Here, as a favour, [url=http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http:/security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-publications/publication-search/legislation/terrorism-act-2000/Code-of-Practice-for-Examin1.pdf?view=Binaryread up on the basics yourself[/url.

How do the UK police lawfully stop and question someone who is not in the UK?

I posted the link. If you don't know, and can't be bothered to read, that's your problem.

OK it appears that a transit lounge is not a geopolitical black hole but from reading your link, where does Miranda fit in this list?

•Individuals or groups whose current or past involvement
in acts or threats of terrorism is known or suspected and
supporters or sponsors of such activity who are known
or suspected;

Any information on the origins and/or location of
terrorist groups;

Possible current, emerging and future terrorist activity;

The means of travel (and documentation) that a group or
individuals involved in terrorist activity could use;

Emerging local trends or patterns of travel through specific
ports or in the wider vicinity that may be linked to
terrorist activity.

The Home Secretary has explained this. The courts will apparently be asked to rule if the police were correct. Also, I already basically gave my answer when I posted:



You'd have to agree that, if true, that certainly amply fits the bill.

Only if you expand the meaning of "terrorist" and "terrorism" and then accept a "considered opinion" instead of facts and evidence

No, you don't get it. You're persistently looking at this the wrong way round. The police didn't and don't need any evidence nor any opinion, considered or otherwise. And the words used and which I quoted would certainly encompass terrorism. Apart from a Justin Bieber concert, what else could endanger national security and put lives at risk?

Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html

Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html

Quote ="Kosh"Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html'" Someone should have a word in the old duffer's shell-like. AFAIK once anyone has signed the Official Secrets Act, they are bound for life. I signed it in 1973 during a 4 week spell at British Aerospace, I'm still bound by it but am certainly no official. Surely it is the secret that is official and not the person sharing it?

Quote ="Kosh"Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html'" Someone should have a word in the old duffer's shell-like. AFAIK once anyone has signed the Official Secrets Act, they are bound for life. I signed it in 1973 during a 4 week spell at British Aerospace, I'm still bound by it but am certainly no official. Surely it is the secret that is official and not the person sharing it?

Isn't there an old [iYes, Minister [/ijoke in there somewhere.

Dunno but it seems strange that a country as paranoid about security as the US has managed to bumble along for 200+ years without the need for an Official Secrets Act

Yes, I am aware of that, that's the schedule 7 limit which does not require a suspicion.
But the Terrorism Act 2006 provides for detention up to 28 days (I was wrong about 14 days, it was doubled in 2006) if there is a suspicion of a terrorist crime.
After the nine hours under schedule 7, if they had had a suspicion of a terrorist crime, they could have held Miranda for up to a month under the Terrorism Act 2006.

But they didn't.
One has to ask oneself, why?

The most likely answer is that they still had no suspicion of such a crime.

Nope, it is 14 days.

As I say it's 14 days but anyway, that's easy. Obviously at that point they either felt they didn't have sufficient evidence to charge Miranda, or else having seized the kit, either saw no point in pursuing it further, or never intended to do so.


If we're allowing ourselves to get into pure personal speculation, my money would go on them not having had enough time to access encrypted files within the time available, but equally I'm far from convinced that they ever really intended to charge Miranda with anything. Which isn't to say that no offence might be made out, please note; it seems to be uncontested that he was carrying stolen data, that in the wrong hands, we are told (and has not been denied) presented a threat to national security and to life.

On the 14 days, hardly anybody is held for that length of time anyway, and one reason for this may be that the government is aware that this draconian and ridiculous law is a world class anomaly of which we should be ashamed. AFAIK even US law only permits detention for a maximum 48 hours. But the lengthy period seems to have acquired shrug-of-the-shoulders status with the British public.

You may be interested to know that an anti-Schedule 7 case is currently progressing through the ECHR, having already been declared admissible, and in fact HM Gov has till 12 September to make submissions. Those should make interesting reading.

Update:

Schedule 7 has survived the latest Human Rights challenge in a [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870616High Court ruling[/url earlier today

"The wife of a convicted terrorist has lost a major challenge against the British police's power to stop and question people at airports."

Does major mean completely pointless?

[url=http://auerfeld.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/buried-in-the-comments-greenwald-miranda-clegg-and-an-indefinite-number-of-documents/An interesting observation on the Miranda case[/url

Especially interesting are Nick Clegg's original comments in his Guardian interview on 23 August:

"The intent behind detaining Miranda was the same: to retrieve or destroy classified information."

The statement was subsequently deleted and this footnote added:

[i• This article was amended on 23 August 2013 after a request from the deputy prime minister’s office based on legal reasons. The footnote was amended on 25 August 2013 to give greater clarity[/i

I wonder what "legal reasons" led to Clegg's comments being removed?

That is my point.
Schedule 7 is purported to be an anti-terrorist measure but was used in a case where terrorism is very probably not the issue.
Was it legal? Very probably, under schedule 7.
Was it right? To have an anti-terrorist law where terrorism doesn't even have to be suspected is way too catch-all and wide open for abuse, as this case probably shows.

...rather like quoting "anti-terrorism law" to prevent photographers practicing in city centres, something that was enforced by the police until campaigning provided some further guidance after MPs got involved - give a little extra power and it WILL be abused until it gets reigned in again.

A bit devil's advocate, but if a person happens to be a mule of stolen security data that poses a grave risk to national security and a threat to life in the wrong hands, then wouldn't it fit under the general label of terrorism-related matters?


Just the argument that was heard and rejected in yesterday's case, and which will exercise the ECHR in September in another case.

I've now had the opportunity to consider the judgment in [url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/2573.htmlthe Sylvie Beghal case[/url. I must say that I can't fault the logic.

The judgment also refers to annual reports by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which reviews naturally encompass the Schedule 7 powers, and what sounds like an ongoing number of consultations, checks and balances.

More to the point, The detailed judgment clearly addresses and deals with all the general principle and specific objections that have been raised earlier in the thread.

Hmm.

Judging by the latest reports on this Miranda 'row' it sounds like the authorities were right to hold Miranda for every second of his detention.

More to the point, why were so many UK secrets entrusted to a relatively low-level operative like Snowden?

I'd also suggest there's more chance of secrets being leaked while in the hands of the Met than any journalist

... and then let him go?
Doesn't square does it?