Policing.uk

Key Cases on Stop and Search

The most important court decisions shaping the law of stop and search, from reasonable grounds to procedural requirements.

The law of stop and search has been shaped by a series of important court decisions interpreting the statutory requirements, the meaning of reasonable grounds, and the procedural obligations on officers.

R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] UKSC 79 (Supreme Court) concerned a section 60 stop and search. The Supreme Court held that while section 60 does not require individual suspicion, the authorising officer must have a reasonable belief that serious violence may take place, and the authorisation must be given in good faith. The court emphasised that section 60 is a measure of last resort and should not be used routinely.

Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 28 (European Court of Human Rights) concerned the predecessor section 44 stop and search power under the Terrorism Act 2000, which allowed searches without any suspicion. The ECHR held that the power violated Article 8 of the Convention because it was too broadly defined and lacked adequate safeguards against abuse. This led to the repeal of section 44 and its replacement by section 47A, which requires a senior officer to reasonably suspect that an act of terrorism will take place.

Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414 established that while there is a moral and social duty to assist the police, there is no legal obligation to answer questions or accompany an officer to a police station voluntarily. Refusing to answer police questions does not constitute obstruction of police. This remains a fundamental principle in stop and search encounters: the person is not obliged to explain themselves unless they are being searched under a power that creates specific obligations.

Osman v DPP [1999] 163 JP 725 concerned the lawfulness of a stop and search where the officer failed to provide grounds for the search before conducting it. The court held that the search was unlawful because the officer had not complied with GOWISELY requirements, even though drugs were found. The evidence was excluded under section 78 of PACE.

Last updated 24 September 2026