Stop and Search in England and Wales: Navigating Legal Authority Public Trust and Socio-Legal Tensions

Introduction 

Stop and Search (S&S) powers are designed as tools of deterrence and prevention, intended to protect public safety and maintain social order. These powers reveal a persistent, complex tension and dichotomy between legal authority and public perception, particularly in diverse communities. Whilst legislation is designed to balance operational efficiency with individual rights, the disproportionate impact on marginalised ethnic minorities, raises concerns regarding fairness, legitimacy, and social cohesion. This article examines S&S from a socio-legal perspective, interrogating the intersection of legislation, judicial oversight, and lived experience. By critically appraising the statutory framework, empirical data, and sociological theory, this article argues that reforms are required to ensure that civil liberties are preserved while policing remains effective and socially legitimate.

Legal Framework/Doctrinal Background Analysis

The primary legislative authority governing S&S is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Under s.1(3), searches require reasonable suspicion, as defined in Code A of PACE. This requires that suspicion be both “genuine” and objectively reasonable, based solely on observable facts rather than personal characteristics, in compliance with the Equality Act. Officers must ground their suspicion in behaviour supported by evidence, rather than intuition or unconscious bias (as an impartial bystander acts). This principle aims to provide a safeguard against arbitrary enforcement and to ensure that S&S powers do not infringe upon human rights, particularly the right to respect private life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

S.60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPO) 1994 permits suspicionless searches within designated areas during specific periods, authorised by officers of inspector rank or above. While judicial oversight permits this power, questions persist regarding its proportionality, social impact, and potential for discriminatory enforcement.

Post-Gillan: S.47A Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) and S.60 CJPOA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judges in Gillan emphasised that S&S powers (in general) must be “in accordance with law [Art.8 ECHR]”, reinforcing the importance of balancing operational necessity with individual rights. Although Gillan addressed anti-terrorism powers under the now-abolished s.44, parallels with s.60 remain notable: both allowing suspicionless searches. However, s.60 is narrower in scope, primarily targeting the prevention of serious violence as supposed to a S&S being ‘expedient’ as previously in the TACT. The court understood ‘expedient’ as ‘advantageous’ rather than ‘reasonable’ and ‘proportionate’. This legislation opened a “clear risk of arbitrariness” and therefore in contravention of the ECHR Art.8.

The government replaced s.44 with s.47A of the TACT to combat human-rights incompatibility by introducing stronger safeguards and a much narrower scope. Consequently, s.47A is significantly stricter than s.60 CJPOA because it can only be authorised where there is a reasonable suspicion of a “specific terrorist act”. Comparingly, s.60 does not require a concrete threat but rather allows police action based on a belief that serious violence “may occur”. This vaguer threshold has created a striking legal contrast: the public-order power now operates more broadly, while the terrorism power has been tightened and “tamed” beneath it.

Despite the unfortunate legal acceptance of s.60, public perception of legitimacy is contested, especially within minority communities. This tension illustrates the complex interplay between law, human rights, and societal expectations, highlighting that legal compliance alone does not guarantee social legitimacy. If the courts could require the removal of s.44 TACT on human-rights grounds, it is arguable that S.60 CJPOA should also be reconsidered or reformed so that its powers are equally narrow and clearly defined in S&S.

Sociological Context: Trust, Legitimacy, and Communities

Sociological theory provides vital insight into the social consequences of S&S. Weber posited that authority derives legitimacy from “public perception”. This suggests that a law that is perceived as unjust or arbitrary is unlikely to be effective, irrespective of statutory sanction. S&S practices (particularly s.60) that disproportionately affect ethnic minorities or economically disadvantaged groups risk undermining this legitimacy, fostering distrust and disengagement from formal legal institutions.

Marxist perspectives contextualise these dynamics, highlighting the disproportionate impact of enforcement on working-class (proletariat) communities. These communities often experience policing as an instrument of social stratification, whereby routine law enforcement reproduces existing inequalities. S&S, when applied disproportionately, remains a mechanism of social control that reinforces structural hierarchies and projecting blue-collar crimes, rather than serving the intended function of public protection.

Tyler’s ‘procedural justice theory’ provides a practical framework for understanding compliance with the law. According to Tyler, individuals are more likely to adhere to legal norms when authorities act “fairly, transparently, and respectfully”. Conversely, perceived discrimination or unfair treatment diminishes compliance and erodes trust. Empirical evidence indicates that BAME communities are disproportionately subjected to S&S, a phenomenon documented by the Home Office and highlighted in the Macpherson Report on institutional racism. The cumulative effect of these disparities is a deepening of social divisions and an erosion of procedural legitimacy, undermining both law enforcement efficacy and societal cohesion.

Furthermore, the impact of S&S extends beyond immediate encounters. Negative experiences are frequently amplified through media narratives and community discourse, creating cycles of mistrust that persist across generations (deviancy amplification theory). Sociological research suggests that such cumulative disadvantage not only affects perceptions of police legitimacy but also broader attitudes toward the criminal justice system, potentially reducing reporting rates and cooperation with law enforcement initiatives from the working class.

Analysis 

Legal Powers versus Public Perception

While statutory compliance is a necessary condition for lawful policing, it is insufficient to ensure public trust. The perception of fairness is critically shaped by the behaviour of officers during S&S encounters. Communication, respect, and procedural transparency are central to public evaluation of legitimacy. Investigations, including covert media reporting, indicate that officer conduct often falls short of these principles, particularly under S.60 powers where discretion is broad and authority highly visible. It shows that lawful compliance of officers (and correct paper trails) does not equate with fair treatment.

The ‘tick-box’ compliance with documenting S&S, while legally adequate, fails to reflect the qualitative experience of those stopped. Public perception is influenced by both the procedural elements of the stop and the interpersonal treatment received, highlighting a disjunction between legal formality and social reality. This underscores the socio-legal tension whereby lawful powers may nevertheless appear unjust, particularly to communities historically subjected to systemic disadvantage.

Disproportionality and Social Consequences

Home Office data consistently demonstrates stark racial disproportionality in S&S practices. Black individuals are significantly more likely to be stopped than White individuals, suggesting both overt and implicit biases in enforcement patterns. Such disparities indirectly violate PACE Code A, the Equality Act 2010, and the Public Sector Equality Duty. Beyond the implications for individual rights, these patterns foster community perceptions of injustice and erode trust in policing institutions.

Disproportionality also affects social cohesion. Communities experiencing frequent stops may perceive policing as a mechanism of negative social control rather than protection, leading to disengagement and reduced cooperation with authorities. This social disengagement contributes to ‘dark figures’ of crime, wherein underreporting is concentrated among certain groups, further undermining both statistical reliability and legitimacy based on a ‘favorited race’.

Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance

Procedural justice theory highlights the centrality of fair treatment, transparency, and accountability in securing voluntary compliance. Empirical studies indicate that the perceived legitimacy of police authority is higher when individuals feel respected and treated equitably, even in the absence of formal sanctions. Conversely, the value for police authority decreases and declines when injustice and unfairness is perceived- eroding public confidence and compliance. Functionalists’ perspective suggest that procedural justice is concurrent with maintaining social order and cohesion.

The effectiveness of suspicionless powers such as s.60 is further complicated by limited evidence of crime reduction. While intended to prevent serious violence, the social costs, including mistrust, community alienation/marginalisation, and reputational damage to law enforcement, are considerable. These dynamics illustrate the socio-legal paradox: powers that are operationally lawful may simultaneously be socially corrosive, undermining the broader objectives of policing and public safety.

Evaluation and Proposed Reforms 

Reconciling legal authority with public trust requires multi-dimensional reforms including: training, s.60 scrutiny, community engagement and legal alignment. As parliament does not have a perspective on reforming s.60, key areas should be:

1. Training: Officers should receive constant education on implicit bias, procedural fairness, and effective communication strategies to ensure that stops are conducted respectfully and equitably.
2. Legal Alignment: Policing practices/legislations are still bound by the Equality Act, and this must be reinforced within other statutory obligations to complement procedural safeguards (and subjecting officers to being penalised).

Moreover, reforms should consider integrating sociological insights into policy design. Recognising the cumulative social effects of repeated stops, media amplification, and intergenerational perceptions of policing would guide the progress of targeted interventions to enhance validity and procedural justice.

Conclusion

Legitimacy in policing is inextricably linked to perceptions of fairness, respect, and transparency. S&S legislation risks eroding social cohesion when applied disproportionately or without adequate attention to procedural justice. Only by addressing both legal and social dimensions of S&S can policing in the UK achieve the dual objectives of operational effectiveness and socio-legal legitimacy, ensuring that the law is upheld not merely in statute, but in the lived experiences of the communities it serves.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Legislation

• Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
• Equality Act 2010
• European Convention on Human Rights (opened for signature 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953)
• Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Case Law

• Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 45

Secondary Sources

Books

• Ashworth A, Principles of Criminal Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2019)
• Bradford B and Jackson J, Trust and Confidence in the Police: A Review of the Evidence (Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 2019)
• Brisbane S, Roberts K, Taylor P and Pountney L, OCR Sociology for A Level Book 2 (Hodder Education 2016)
• Hough M, Policing and the Public (Routledge 2010)
• Marx K and Engels F, The Communist Manifesto (Penguin Classics 2002)
• Padfield N, Stop and Search Powers: Policing and Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press 2012)
  Reiner R, The Politics of the Police (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2010)
• Sherman LW, Evidence-Based Policing (Routledge 2013)
• Tyler T, Why People Obey the Law (Princeton University Press 2006)
• Weber M, Economy and Society (University of California Press 1978)

Official / Government Reports

• Home Office, Police Powers and Procedures: Stop and Search Data (2023)
• Home Office, Review of Stop and Search Powers (Home Office Research Report 93/2018)
• Home Office, Stop and Search Data Dashboard (2023)
• Independent Office for Police Conduct, Stop and Search Guidance (2023)
• Macpherson W, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry (1999)

Online Government/Statistical:

• Race Disparity Unit, ‘Stop and search’ (Ethnicity Facts and Figures) https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest/ accessed 28 November 2025.
• College of Policing, Stop and Search: National Briefing (College of Policing 2022)
  Home Office, Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme: Guidance (Home Office 2014)

Media Sources

• BBC Panorama, Stop and Search: Undercover Investigation (BBC One 2022)
• Polglase A and Lee J, Unmasked: Secret BBC Filming Exposes Hidden Culture of Misogyny and Racism Inside Met Police (BBC Panorama, 1 October 2025) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgq06d44jyo accessed 29 November 2025.