5.  Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (“TACT”) empowers police, immigration officers and designated customs officers to stop, examine and search passengers at ports, airports and international rail terminals. No prior authorisation is required for the use of Schedule 7 and the power to stop and question may be exercised without suspicion of involvement in terrorism. However, questioning must be for the purpose of determining whether the person appears to be concerned or to have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. If someone fails to co-operate he or she is deemed to have committed a criminal offence and could face up to three months in prison, a fine or both. 6.  The applicant, a French national, is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. Her husband, who is also a French national, is in custody in France in relation to terrorist offences. 7.  On 4 January 2011, following a visit to her husband in France, the applicant and her three children returned to the United Kingdom on a flight from Paris. The flight landed at East Midlands Airport at approximately 8.05 p.m. 8.  At the United Kingdom Borders’ Agency (“UKBA”) desk the applicant and her children were stopped but she was not formally detained or arrested. She was told that she was not under arrest and that the police did not suspect her of being a terrorist, but that they needed to speak to her to establish if she might be “a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. She was therefore taken to an examination room with her youngest child. As the applicant had arranged for someone to meet her at the airport, her two older children were permitted to proceed to Arrivals. The applicant’s luggage was taken to another room and searched. 9.  The applicant asked to consult a lawyer and for an opportunity to pray. At approximately 9.00 p.m., while she was praying, one of the officers spoke with her lawyer and indicated that she would be free to speak to him in fifteen minutes. When she finished praying, she was told that she could telephone her lawyer after she had been searched. 10.  At approximately 9.23 p.m., after the applicant had been searched, she spoke with her lawyer by telephone. However, the officers made it clear that they would not delay the examination pending his arrival. 11.  In or around 9.30 p.m. the applicant was taken to an examination room and served with a form TACT 1 (see paragraph 42 below). The contents of the form were also read to her. In response, she informed the officers that she would only answer questions after her lawyer arrived. Thereafter, she was asked a number of questions about her family, her financial circumstances and her recent visit to France. She refused to answer most of those questions. 12.  At around 10.00 p.m., following the conclusion of the examination, the applicant was cautioned and reported for the offence of failing to comply with her duties under Schedule 7 by refusing to answer questions. She was also told that she was “free to go”. 13.  The applicant’s lawyer arrived at approximately 10.40 p.m. 14.  The applicant was subsequently charged with three offences: wilfully obstructing a search under Schedule 7; assaulting a police officer contrary to section 89 of the Police Act 1996; and wilfully failing to comply with a duty under Schedule 7. The first and second charges were eventually dismissed. 15.  On 12 December 2011 the applicant appeared before Leicester Magistrates’ Court, where she pleaded guilty to the third charge and was sentenced to be conditionally discharged. That plea followed a ruling by the District Judge that he had no power to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process on the grounds advanced by the applicant; namely, that the powers given to the police under Schedule 7 had infringed her rights under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention and her right to freedom of movement between Member States of the European Union under Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 16.  The applicant appealed to the High Court against the District Judge’s ruling. 17.  On appeal, the applicant alleged that there had been an abuse of process based on a violation of her rights under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention and her freedom-of-movement rights. She also sought a declaration of incompatibility; or, if no declaration were to be granted, she contended that her rights under the above-mentioned Convention Articles had been infringed. 18.  With respect to her Convention rights, she argued that the powers under Schedule 7 were in breach of Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention because they were neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate safeguards to be “in accordance with the law”; or, in the alternative, that the interference with her Article 8 rights was not proportionate. She further argued that her rights under Article 6 had been engaged at the latest when she was obliged to answer questions exposing her to the risk of self‑incrimination without her lawyer in attendance. 19.  The High Court delivered its judgment on 28 August 2013. In respect of the Article 8 complaint, the court considered that the present case was distinguishable from that of Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, ECHR 2010 (extracts). Unlike the Code of Practice relating to the powers exercised under section 44 of TACT (the provisions under consideration in Gillan and Quinton), in the present case the relevant Home Office Code of Practice and accompanying Practical Advice (see paragraphs 42 and 43 below) afforded a measure of legal protection against arbitrary interferences by the Executive. Moreover, port and border control was very different from the power to stop and search, exercisable anywhere in the jurisdiction, and conclusions as to the arbitrariness of the latter did not readily translate to conclusions as to the former. The United Kingdom, as an “island nation”, concentrated controls at its national frontiers and the court was therefore of the view that it was to be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in carrying out these controls. 20.  Not being constrained by the authority of Gillan and Quinton, the court went on to find that the Schedule 7 powers were sufficiently circumscribed and were therefore “in accordance with the law”. First, it noted that many exercises of Schedule 7 powers were unlikely even to engage Article 8 as the intrusions would fall below the threshold of a minimum level of seriousness. Secondly, it considered that the arguments which served to distinguish Gillan and Quinton likewise served to emphasise the important and particular position of port and border controls and the need for such powers. Thirdly, the Schedule 7 powers were applicable only to a limited category of people: namely, travellers in confined geographical areas. Furthermore, while there was no room for complacency, the statistics collated by the Independent Reviewer (see paragraphs 48-49 and 56-61 below) did not suggest arbitrary overuse or misuse in respect of members of ethnic-minority communities. Fourthly, the Schedule 7 powers could only be exercised in respect of that limited category for the purpose of determining whether the person questioned appeared to be a person who was or had been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, and these limitations told against the powers being arbitrary. Fifthly, the Schedule 7 powers were principally an aspect of port and border control rather than of a criminal investigation and it was therefore not surprising that there was no requirement of “reasonable suspicion” for the powers to be exercised. Sixthly, the court noted that the underlying purpose of the Schedule 7 powers was to protect the public from terrorism. 21.  In this regard, the court observed:
“The manifest importance of that purpose and the utility of the powers do not, of course and of themselves, entail the conclusion that these powers are not arbitrary and thus compatible with Art. 8. However, the exercise of Schedule 7 powers is subject to cumulative statutory limitations. Their exercise is governed by the Code. Over and above the possibility of legal challenge if misused in an individual case, they are subject to continuing review by the Independent Reviewer. The absence of a requirement of reasonable suspicion is both explicable and justifiable. For the reasons already given, we are not at all persuaded that these powers render the public vulnerable ‘...to interference by public officials acting on any personal whim, caprice, malice, predilection or purpose other than for which the power was conferred’ – Lord Bingham’s test for arbitrariness, in Gillan (HL), at [34], set out above. Equally, we are not persuaded that these are unfettered powers, falling foul of the test applied in Gillan (Strasbourg), at [76] – [77], also set out above; for our part, the ‘level of precision’ of these powers (ibid) falls and falls comfortably on the right side of the line.” 22.  The court also found that the exercise of Schedule 7 powers was proportionate. For the reasons already given, it did not accept that they were too broad. Furthermore, it noted that there was an objective justification for the focus on ports, airports and border areas, which, in the United Kingdom, provided a particularly appropriate venue for detecting, deterring and disrupting potential terrorist activity. With regard to the circumstances of the applicant’s case, the court found that the interference with her Article 8 rights had been justified. As she had been returning to the United Kingdom after visiting her husband, who was imprisoned in France for terrorism offences, she was not stopped and examined on a random basis. Moreover, the questions asked of her were rationally connected to the statutory purpose and were in no way disproportionate. 23.  In view of the court’s conclusions in respect of Article 8, it found that the applicant’s Article 5 argument could be dealt with summarily. As the respondent accepted that there had been an interference with the applicant’s rights, and the applicant accepted that the interference was “in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law”, the only issue to be determined was whether the interference was “lawful”, and the conclusions in respect of Article 8 had determined that it was. 24.  Finally, the court considered the applicant’s argument under Article 6 of the Convention. However, it found that on the facts of her case, Article 6 was not engaged as her examination under Schedule 7 was not an inquiry preparatory to criminal proceedings but rather an inquiry related to border control with the specific public interest of safeguarding society from the risk of terrorism. Furthermore, the examination was not carried out for the purpose of obtaining admissions or evidence for use in such proceedings, and the fact that the applicant’s answers might have yielded information potentially of evidential value did not of itself suffice to engage Article 6. Even if the applicant’s rights had been engaged, the court found that there would have been no violation since it was fanciful to suppose that permission would be granted in criminal proceedings for any admissions obtained pursuant to a Schedule 7 examination to be adduced in evidence. 25.  The applicant was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which gave judgment on 22 July 2015. 26.  Prior to the judgment, Schedule 7 was amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which required examining officers to take a person into detention if they wished to examine him or her for longer than one hour; reduced the maximum period of detention from nine hours to six hours; required the periodic review of detention by a review officer; provided that the questioning of an examinee should not commence until after the arrival of a requested solicitor; and stipulated that examining officers should be designated and trained for this purpose (see paragraphs 52-53 below). The Code of Practice was amended to reflect these changes (see paragraphs 54-55 below). In considering the applicant’s complaints, the Supreme Court had regard to the amended Schedule 7 power. 27.  With regard to the Article 8 complaint, Lord Hughes (with whom Lord Hodge agreed) also considered that Gillan and Quinton (cited above) was distinguishable on its facts since the Schedule 7 power was confined to those passing through ports of entry/exit, while the section 44 power was exercisable in relation to any person anywhere in the street. Furthermore, while there was evidence that the safeguards provided in the case of section 44 were ineffective, none of these applied to the powers under Schedule 7. Having regard to the safeguards which applied in respect of Schedule 7, their Lordships were satisfied that the principle of legality was met. In particular, they had regard to the restriction of the power to those passing in and out of the country; the restriction to the statutory purpose; the restriction to specially trained and accredited police officers; the restrictions on the duration of questioning; the restrictions on the type of search; the requirement to give explanatory notice to those questioned, including a procedure for complaint; the requirement to permit consultation with a solicitor and the notification of a third party; the requirement for records to be kept; the availability of judicial review; and the continuous supervision of the Independent Reviewer. 28.  Lords Neuberger and Dyson agreed that there were important differences between the statutory provisions and modus operandi of the Schedule 7 system and section 44 system, and that those differences established that the powers in the case at hand were more foreseeable and less arbitrary than those considered in Gillan and Quinton. 29.  Lords Hughes and Hodge further accepted that the interference with the applicant’s private life had been proportionate: the intrusion itself had been comparatively light, as it was not beyond the reasonable expectations of those who travel across the United Kingdom’s international borders, and, in view of the relevant safeguards, a fair balance could be said to have been struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the public at large. Lords Neuberger and Dyson agreed that the appeal, insofar as it was based on proportionality, should fail, given that the interference was slight, the independent justification was convincing, the supervision impressive, the safeguards and potential benefits substantial, and no equally effective but less intrusive proposal had been forthcoming. 30.  Lords Neuberger and Dyson added that:
“Legality is said to give rise to a problem for the powers granted under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 because those powers can be exercised randomly. However, it is important to the effectiveness of these powers that they can be exercised in this way. Furthermore, if the power to stop and question under Schedule 7 infringes the Convention because it is exercisable randomly, the logical conclusion must be either that the valuable power must be abandoned or the power must be exercised in a far more invasive and extensive way, namely by stopping and questioning everyone passing through ports and borders. The former alternative would be unfortunate in terms of deterring and hindering terrorism, whereas the latter alternative would seem to put proportionality and legality in irreconcilable tension.”
(b)  Article 5 31.  Although Lords Hughes, Hodge, Neuberger and Dyson agreed with the Divisional Court that the comments made in relation to safeguards in the context of Article 8 also applied in respect of Article 5, in their view it did not follow that the power of detention was automatically justified. The level of intrusion occasioned by detention for up to six hours was of a different order to the intrusion occasioned by compulsory question and search, and safeguards which were adequate for one would not necessarily be sufficient for the other. Furthermore, it did not follow that the fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interest of the public would fall in the same place. However, although their Lordships expressed doubts about whether detention for as long as six hours could ever be justified, on the facts of the present case they found that, to the extent that there was any deprivation of liberty, it was clear that it was for no longer than necessary to complete the process and therefore there had been no breach of Article 5.
(c)  Article 6 § 1 32.  In respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6, Lords Hughes, Hodge, Neuberger and Dyson accepted that the privilege against self‑incrimination did not apply where a person was being questioned pursuant to Schedule 7. However, their Lordships considered port questioning and search under Schedule 7 to be separate from a criminal investigation and, since the applicant had been at no time a defendant to a criminal charge, no question of a breach of her right to a fair trial could arise. In reaching this conclusion, they noted that any use in a criminal prosecution of answers obtained under compulsion would breach Article 6 of the Convention; consequently, Schedule 7 material could never be adduced in a subsequent criminal trial (unless the prosecution concerned the failure to comply with the Schedule 7 duty). 33.  Lord Kerr disagreed with the majority that the Schedule 7 powers were “in accordance with the law”. In fact, he considered that comparison with the section 44 powers illustrated the greater ambit of the Schedule 7 powers. In particular, he observed that no authorisation was required for an examining officer to have resort to the Schedule 7 powers; the examining officer did not have to consider the use of those powers expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism; there was no geographical or temporal limitation on the use of those powers, other than that they were to be used at a port of entry into or exit from the United Kingdom; and there was no provision for their automatic lapse, nor was there any question of their renewed authorisation being subject to confirmation. Furthermore, Lord Kerr noted that certain features were common to both sets of powers: the width of the powers was similar (in both instances there was no requirement of either reasonable or even subjective suspicion) and challenges to their use on conventional judicial review grounds faced the same difficulties identified in Gillan and Quinton (namely, if an examining officer was not required to have a reasonable suspicion, how was the proportionality of the exercise of his powers to be reviewed?). 34.  In response to the majority’s reliance on the fact that Schedule 7 powers could only be used in respect of persons passing through ports of entry or exit, Lord Kerr made two points. First, being subjected to border controls, such as the requirement to provide proof of identity and entitlement to enter, was entirely different from being required to answer questions about one’s movements and activities and facing criminal sanction for refusing. Secondly, and more importantly, the fact that people were accustomed to intrusion moving through ports of entry or exit did not bear on the question of whether the circumstances in which the Schedule 7 powers could be exercised were too widely drawn to satisfy the test of “in accordance with the law”. In other words, an unfettered power which might be arbitrarily or capriciously used did not become legal just because people generally did not take exception to its use. 35.  Furthermore, given that there were 245 million passenger movements through United Kingdom ports every year, the fact that the Schedule 7 power was used sparingly could have no bearing on its legality. A power on which there are insufficient legal constraints does not become legal simply because those who may have resort to it exercise self-restraint. It was the potential reach of the power – and not its actual use – which had to be judged. In any case, although the percentage of travellers subjected to the use of the power was small, in absolute terms the number was not inconsequential, since on average five to seven people each day were examined for more than an hour. 36.  Finally, Lord Kerr expressed concern about the potential for arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of the power since there was no clearly obvious means of policing the requirement that persons should not be stopped and questioned just because of their ethnic background or religion. In any case, the Code of Practice contemplated that ethnic origin or religious adherence could be at least one of the reasons for exercising the power, just so long as it was not the sole ground. Lord Kerr considered that the fact that the legislation authorised the use of a coercive power, at least partly, on grounds of race and religion should be starkly confronted since it permitted direct discrimination, which was entirely at odds with the notion of an enlightened, pluralistic society all of whose members were treated equally.
(b)  Proportionality 37.  Lord Kerr was not persuaded that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Articles 5 and 8 was “necessary”. In this regard, he noted that there was no evidence that a suspicion-less power to stop, detain, search and question was the only way to achieve the goal of combatting terrorism.
(c)  Privilege against self-incrimination 38.  Lord Kerr considered the requirement that a person questioned under Schedule 7 must answer on pain of prosecution for failing to do so to be in breach of that person’s common law privilege against self-incrimination and therefore incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention. In Lord Kerr’s opinion, it was inescapable that there was a real and appreciable risk of prosecution if the answers to the questions asked proved to be self‑incriminating, and the fact that the applicant in the present case was not suspected of being a terrorist was nothing to the point. If she was asked questions designed to establish whether she appeared to be a terrorist, the potential of her answers to incriminate her if they were of an inculpatory character was indisputable. This remained the case even if those self‑incriminating answers could not be adduced in evidence, as they might prompt enquiry which could lead to the obtaining of independent evidence.