FEWER THAN 1 IN 50 ANTI-TERROR STOP AND SEARCHES IN LONDON RESULT IN ARREST - FEATHERSTONE

4.39.34pm BST (GMT +0100) Fri 2nd Jul 2004

Lynne warns of stop and search being used too routinely

Commenting on London stop and searches that show a dramatic increase in the number of ethic minorities being stopped and searched by London's police forces, and that fewer than one in fifty stop and searches result in arrest with no information available about successful prosecutions, Liberal Democrat London Assembly member Lynne Featherstone said:-

"The ethnic breakdown of stop and searches in London makes depressing reading, but is a reflection of what is happening on the streets. Serious questions must be asked of both the Home Office and the Met about the use of anti-terrorism stop and searches to make sure there is no abuse of these powers.

"Given the very low rate of conversion from stops and searches to arrests, and the lack of information on successful prosecutions, questions must be asked as to whether these powers are being used appropriately.

"Urgent investigation needs to be carried to ensure the Asian community is not being stopped because they look Asian or look Muslim, but only if there are grounds to believe a person poses a genuine threat to London's security. Stop and search has a role if it is intelligence led but not if it is

random and with prejudice."

"I will be raising these concerns with the Met Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens when I meet with him next week."

Ends

Notes to editor

Out of 17,845 people stopped and searched under Terrorism Act 2000 powers in 2002/03 in London, 9 were arrested in connection with terrorism and a further 297 for other offences - meaning just 1.7% of all stop and searches result in arrest.

Parliamentary questions raised by the Liberal Democrats revealed the following information from the Home Office the data collected on stops and searches made under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not automatically cross-referenced with subsequent charges or prosecutions, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/s95race2003.pdf