House of Commons debate on Syria ~ A glance at some of the legal background

11:54 0 Comments

The House of Commons debate on Syria may be seen via the Parliament website.   The debate was notable in that the House of Commons voted against a government motion (HERE) which contained the possibility of a strong humanitarian response from the international community including, if necessary, military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons.  The debate concluded with this exchange:

Edward Miliband: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There having been no motion passed by this House tonight, will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that, given the will of the House that has been expressed tonight, he will not use the royal prerogative to order the UK to be part of military action before there has been another vote in the House of Commons?
Mr Speaker: That is of course not a matter for the Chair, but the Prime Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and he is welcome to respond.
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I can give that assurance. Let me say that the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that response.

The law, by means of so-called Royal Prerogative powers, gives the executive immense power in a number of key areas of government: particularly, defence and foreign affairs.  The Royal Prerogative was examined in a House of Commons Library Note of 30th December 2009.  An earlier report was The Governance of Britain (July 2007) and also see the the report of the Public Administration Select Committee (4th March 2004) - Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament. 

The Select Committee wished to see greater parliamentary control over all the executive powers enjoyed by Ministers under the royal prerogative.  This would have included full parliamentary scrutiny of decisions on armed conflict.  At the time of the Select Committee's report, the events of the 2003 Iraq War were highly prominent and controversy continues to rage to this day.  The Chilcot Committee has not yet reported.

Interestingly, the government chose to put its case for Syria to the House of Commons and this has prompted Joshua Rozenberg to ask whether there is a new constitutional convention to the effect that the Commons will usually be consulted - Syria Intervention: is there a new constitutional convention - Guardian 2nd September. 

Another interesting feature about the House of Commons debate is that the government published its view of the the legal position relating to intervention in Syria - HERE.  The government argued that if authority under Chapter VII of the UN Charter was not forthcoming, the UK could act under the 'doctrine of humanitarian intervention'  (discussed HERE).   On this difficult and controversial matter see the article 'The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention.'   Global Policy Forum has published an interesting piece - 'Humanitarian Intervention?'  There are arguments that the UK either could not act on the basis of humanitarian intervention or, if it could do so, the necessary conditions have not been met - The Guardian 29th August. 

Throughout the present situation, the British government has argued that any military objectives were to be focussed solely on the chemical weapon capability of the Syrian government.  However, in practical terms, it was particularly difficult to see how military action could be confined in that way.  Furthermore, the responses of other States to British military action are difficult, and perhaps impossible, to forecast with any certainty.  The future remains unclear and much will depend on the eventual report from Chemical Weapons Inspectors who have investigated the situation in Syria - (OPCW - UN Investigation Team returns to The Hague from Syria).  

Notes:

a)   Watching the Law - Syria - Chemical Weapons

b)   The idea of 'humanitarian intervention' has a long history and certainly precedes in time the 'responsibility  to protect' but international law is not clear on the matter.   See Wikipedia HERE. and the article by Joshua Rozenberg in The Guardian 28th August - Syria intervention: it may not be wise, but using force may be lawful

c)   It is the UN Charter which creates the Security Council and grants powers to the Council (Ch. 5).  The UN Charter has Chapters addressing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes (Ch. 6) and Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. (Ch. 7).   

Since UN Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006) a responsibility to protect (R2P) has been developing.  The developing principles of R2P are based on the idea that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

The Responsibility to Protect has three "pillars"


i)     A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities,
(ii)  The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own
(iii)  If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.


Resolution 1674 noted - "that the deliberate targeting of civilians and other protected persons, and the commission of systematic, flagrant and widespread violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in situations of armed conflict, may constitute a threat to international peace and security, and, reaffirms in this regard its readiness to consider such situations and, where necessary, to adopt appropriate steps; ..."

Resolution 1674 cannot be read as if the Security Council opted to handover its responsibilities under the Charter to those States which choose to act as policemen.  Res. 1674 was preceded by the World Summit Outcome Document of 2005 and paragraphs 138 and 139 are clear that action against States has to be coordinated via the UN Security Council.  Res. 1674 reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the outcome document.

d)   For further material:

i)   Responsibility to Protect

ii)  Responsibility to Protect

iii) Article by Eve Massingham in International Review of the Red Cross Vol. 91 No. 876 December 2009 - Military Intervention for Humanitarian purposes

Solicitor General loses in contempt proceedings

00:29 0 Comments

The Solicitor General (Oliver Heald) brought proceedings in the High Court to have a mother, Jennifer Marie Jones, committed to prison for contempt of court.  The President of the Family Division (Munby LJ) dismissed the application saying ' 'The Solicitor General has failed to prove his case.  The application is dismissed.'   Read the judgment.  

The Law Officers have standing (locus) to bring proceedings even where the alleged contempt is civil and relates to an order obtained by a private individual (para 14 of the judgment).

Jones would have been unrepresented but for solicitors and a barrister (Christopher Hames) acting for her pro bono.   On this, Munby LJ said (42 and 43):

Munby LJ then referred to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and 'the learning expounded' in Hammerton  v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248, [2007] 2 FLR 1133 - a case concerning committal for contempt of an unrepresented father.

Munby LJ made no order as to costs.

It is to be hoped that government pays heed to Munby LJ's words.  Anyone facing contempt proceedings (with the possibility of imprisonment) should be entitled to publicly funded representation regardless of means.

Roundup ~ Friday 23rd August

00:58 0 Comments

This week, the The Guardian and the David Miranda story have dominated the legal news.  What else is there?  Here are just some of the bits and pieces I have come across.

The court service and the judges:

University College London has a Constitution Unit which has published an interesting article relating to the future of the court service.  The article raises some questions which the judiciary need to be considering as the future of the court service is decided in the coming months - What's next for the court service?  The struggle between the judiciary and the executive.

On 26th March 2013, a low key written ministerial statement appeared before the House of Commons from the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, declaring that he had asked staff to ‘explore proposals for the reform of the resourcing and administration of our courts and tribunals.’ Lodged between announcements that student loans were to be sold off and the reprivatisation of the East Coast mainline, it wasn’t until two months later when The Times splashed that one of the proposals was the full privatisation of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) that it attracted any attention.



Policy Exchange:

A plan for a cheaper more effective justice system  has been published by PolicyExchange  which describes itself as the 'UK's leading think tank' - an educational charity seeking to develop new policy ideas with a view to improving public services etc.  Its work has not been without influence within government - e.g. the idea for elected Police Commissioners.  Policy Exchange sees the criminal justice system as one of the most expensive in the world, operating with over-centralised agencies generating high-cost and ineffective services.  Many of the ‘customers’ of the criminal justice system are touched by a plethora of different agencies and government departments, but there is no clear strategic leadership locally that can cut through the duplication and solve the social problems that contribute to such high demand.  The paper goes on to say that the election of Police and Crime Commissioners is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the balance of power in a system currently bereft of local control, financial responsibility or democratic accountability.

Interesting ideas here but likely to be viewed as a step too far given that Police and Crime Commissioners are still in their infancy and have not been exactly without controversy.

Legal futures:

An article in Legal Futures looks at the role of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)and the proposed Price Competitive Tendering (PCT) process.  The legal profession is generally opposed to the PCT plans put forward by the Secretary of State for Justice.  However, the SRA  will consider fast-tracking alternative business structure (ABS) applicants who want to bid for the government’s proposed criminal legal aid contracts.

Maybe it is necessary for the SRA to be pragmatic and prepare for the day when - (as seems likely) - PCT is pushed forward by the government.   (The government is currently considering responses to their Transforming Legal Aid paper but, so far, there are no signs of any major reversal of policy).  However, PCT cannot be resisted if the legal profession is not as one on the issue.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  

Attack on justice:

Another interesting article tells how the Ministry of Justice's Legal Aid Policy Team is made up - The attack on British justice: who is on the demolition squad

The author (Jon Mack) wrote:

Lately I asked the Ministry of Justice how many staff were employed in the Legal Aid Policy team that is working to radically alter the landscape of publicly-funded criminal justice in England and Wales. And how many of those staff were legally qualified?  The answer came back: only one of the Ministry of Justice’s 35-strong Legal Aid Policy team is legally qualified.

It would be impossible to imagine the government changing the way of working for GPs without consulting the Royal College of General Practitioners. It would be inconceivable that the policy team would not have medically trained staff seconded to it, or working with it in an advisory capacity. But it seem that is exactly what is happening in the Legal Aid Policy Team. Samuel Johnson described remarriage as ‘the triumph of hope over experience.’ The MoJ hasn’t had many triumphs recently, but it seems that its belief in its own capability is triumphing over the experience of a great many practitioners willing to provide advice free of charge.

If a reminder were needed that access to justice continues to be under attack the see Criminal Defence Barrister  and The Telegraph asks Are Britain's barristers living on borrowed time?

Swingeing cuts to legal aid, a shake-up to the legal system allowing solicitors to represent clients in court and – if the Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling has his way – the outsourcing of criminal defence to firms run by companies such as Tesco or HGV hire firm Eddie Stobart means that the criminal bar is fast going the way of red telephone boxes: relics of another era, destined for extinction.

Concerns about Liberty in the UK:

For those concerned with government and the desire of some Ministers to increase their powers, the Paul Bernal blog has published Four fears for authoritarians: fear of a strong, independent, determined press; fear that people will learn what they are doing; fear that people are hiding things from them; fear that people can learn too much.

It's though provoking stuff coming close to the revelation that the UK has a Middle East base working on internet surveillance.  According to reports it has cost a mere £1 billion.

The Council of Europe has weighed into the David Miranda situation (HERE) with Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland writing to the United Kingdom government to request information following two recent incidents which raised concerns about free expression and the media.  Jagland refers to the reported detention by police at Heathrow airport of David Miranda and also to the reported destruction of computer hard drives at the Guardian, apparently under the instruction of government officials.

Jurors:

Criminal Law and Justice reports that the age limit for jurors is to rise to 75 and see the government's announcement.   The MoJ said raising the current age limit of 70 would make the criminal justice system more inclusive, reflecting modern society and increases in life expectancy.  Under the Government’s plans, those selected for jury service who are aged between 70 and 75 would be expected to serve, but could be excused on a discretionary basis if they can provide a good reason. In Scotland, jurors over the age of 71 can apply to be excused as of right.

This move is bound to raise questions as to the retirement age (70) for judges and magistrates. 

UK Supreme Court - appeals:

Casecheck has a list of cases in which permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted.

Court News UK:

Judge orders defendant to remove veil ... an interesting story in the light of events a few years back when a Magistrate dealt with a similar situation - Veil row magistrate reprimanded.

Blogs:

Family Lore - Friday review: Good news, bad news, no news.

Marilyn Stowe - Family Division President says legal aid cuts 'disconcerting'

UK Human Rights - They paved Plantagenet 'n put up a parking lot - David Hart QC

UK Criminal Law Blog - A view from ... the Magistrates' Court bench: The appointment and role of a JP

Miranda 5 ~ Hearing in the High Court

03:03 0 Comments

Update 23rd August 2013 - Judgment

Updated at 1700 BST on 22nd August

This morning, the High Court heard an application on behalf of David Miranda for an interim injunction.  The case was before Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Kenneth Parker. The Letter before Action (LBA) - published by The Guardian - gave an indication as to the nature of the injunction being sought.

The LBA asked that the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis undertake that there will be no inspection, copying, disclosure, transfer, distribution or interference, in any way, with our client's data which was seized pursuant to Schedule 7, pending determination of our client's claim.

Realising that
there may already have been such activity, the LBA went on to seek an undertaking that the product of any inspection or interference will not be disclosed, shared or used further in any way, and will be kept secure pending the outcome of our client's challenge to the legality of the seizure of that data.

A further possibility was that other parties had already been granted possession or access to the data (or copies of it).  Hence, the LBA asked that similar undertakings be obtained from any such parties if you are in a position to do so.   The LBA also sought disclosure of the identity of any such parties so that undertakings could be obtained directly.

The LBA made it clear that if the undertakings were not obtained by '12pm on 20th August' then there would be no option but to seek urgent interim injunctive relief in the High Court and to seek costs on an indemnity basis.

The purpose of any injunction would be to preserve the status quo pending the full hearing and determination of the case.   Costs on an indemnity basis are discussed in the Law Society Gazette 7th May 2009 and also see Civil Procedure Rules Part 44.  

Counsel are Matthew Ryder QC for David Miranda.  Jonathan Laidlaw QC and Steven Kovats QC for the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police.

Outcome as reported on Twitter .... more detail to follow ....

#Miranda Judges rule that until next Friday only limited inspection of seized items can take place
— Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC) August 22, 2013

Order: no inspection, copying or transfer of #miranda material until next Friday's hearing save 1: to protect national security including ..
— Carl Gardner (@carlgardner) August 22, 2013

.. to protect life and the diminution of UK national security.capability and 2: for Schedule 7 examination #miranda
— Carl Gardner (@carlgardner) August 22, 2013

Wrote to Home Sec just now announcing my review of #Miranda detention https://t.co/N2RCAJuMdl. No #Schedule7 comment till report is done.

— David Anderson (@terrorwatchdog) August 22, 2013

Media:

The Guardian 22nd August - David Miranda wins partial victory over data seized by Police.

Solicitor comment:

After the hearing, Miranda's solicitor spoke to the media.  The court's reasoned judgment is expected on Friday (23rd August) and, when it has been studied, a decision will be taken as to whether to appeal.  The case returns to court on Friday 29th August.  The Home Secretary had indicated (via counsel) that she may apply to the court for the Justice and Security Act 2013 (Part 2) Closed Material Procedure to be invoked.  The solicitor also said, in response to a question, that she had no knowledge of any criminal investigation.  The initiation of a criminal investigation emerged as part of the High court hearing - Telegraph 22nd August.

Previous posts:

Detention of David Miranda - is this a misuse of State power?

Miranda 2 - The Code of Practice

Miranda 3 - Amendments to the law are already coming

Miranda 4 - Legal Action

Miranda 4 ~ Legal action ~ Updated 21st August

05:48 0 Comments

Updated post - with more information about the legal action being taken by Mr Miranda

Matrix Chambers have announced that they have been instructed to act for David Miranda in a legal action - Matrix Chambers news.   The brief announcement states:

Matthew Ryder QC and Edward Craven have been instructed by Kate Goold and Gwendolen Morgan of Bindmans to act for David Miranda in relation to his recent detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. David Miranda was held at London’s Heathrow airport  for nine hours on Sunday morning while passing through Heathrow on a stopover. David Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who interviewed Edward Snowdon, the former US spy agency contractor who has been granted asylum by Russia. 

Specific details about the legal grounds on
which the actual action is being based remain to be seen* but this will certainly be a case to watch!  Journalists the world over will most definitely be watching.  The action might be some form of challenge (based on the European Convention on Human Rights) to the legislation itself.  Alternatively, the action might be based on alleged improper application of Schedule 7 to Mr Miranda at the time in question.  An action in court will probably bring into play the 'Closed Material Procedures' in Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013.  If that happens, the public may well be denied knowledge of all the facts.

* An update to this will appear as and when details of the legal action become clearer.  21st August - please see below for update.

Note:  Schedule 7 is already the subject of a challenge before the European Court of Human Rights - (here).  In May 2013, the court declared the case admissible - see the admissibility judgment Sabure Malik v UK.  Malik submits that the use of the Schedule 7 powers in his case violated his rights under Articles 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.

Update:

On 20th August, a Letter before Action (LBA) was sent from solicitors to the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police.  The letter is in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules Part 54 and the Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review.  Mr Miranda intends to challenge, by way of judicial review, his detention under Schedule 7 and also the taking and retention of his property including journalistic materials.  

Mr Miranda has also sought undertakings that, pending the determination of his case, there is no inspection or copying etc. of his material.  The solicitors have also requested return of the equipment taken from Mr Miranda within 7 days from the time they were taken from him.  (On this see paragraph 11 of Schedule 7).

It is argued that the decisions to detain Miranda and question him (subject to a criminal sanction) and also to seize his property were wholly unlawful.  It is said that the decision to detain Miranda was unlawful because it amounted to use of the legislation for an improper purpose and the decision was a disproportionate interference with rights under Articles 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  It is further argued that the powers under Schedule 7 are incompatible with those Articles.   In particular, the use of Schedule 7 in relation to journalistic material raises questions going beyond other cases in which Schedule 7 is under challenge.

Miranda alleges that, in the absence of some other explanation, it seems clear that the official decision to detain, question and search him was based on the government's wish to obtain access to confidential journalistic material in his possession.  This would be using legislation for an improper purpose which would be unlawful at common law under the principle set out in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997.

Also, the use of the Terrorism Act as a way of obtaining journalistic should not be permissible since it would enable either the protections in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or the Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 5 to be bypassed.

The solicitors will also be seeking disclosure from the authorities of many matters such as precisely why Schedule 7 was used against Miranda; whether Ministers were involved or consulted; whether any information obtained has been passed on to foreign States etc.

Previous posts:

Detention of David Miranda - is this a misuse of State power?

Miranda 2 - The Code of Practice

Miranda 3 -Amendments to the law are already coming

Additional links:

Eurorights: David Miranda: Access to a lawyer

UK Human Rights blog - David Miranda - remember his name - here Adam Wagner wrote - 'Was he detained unlawfully? I am not sure. His solicitor’s pre-action letter sets out a fairly convincing case. But there are two potential holes in the reasoning, in my view.'

Head of Legal Blog - Could David Miranda be a terrorist - Carl Gardner argues - 'So whether or not the questioning and detention of David Miranda is held to have been unlawful, Parliament should now look again at the definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act, at least as it applies in the context of Schedule 7 and to the work of journalists. I worry about how long public confidence can be maintained in the existence of Schedule 7 if it’s used to fight things labelled “terrorism” that are nothing like what you and I mean by the word.'

The Guardian 21st August - David Miranda's detention has no basis in law, says former Lord Chancellor - (view of Lord Falconer QC) and Smashing of Guardian hard drives over Snowden story 'sinister', says Amnesty

Despite the headline, Falconer was a little more guarded.  He is reported to have said - 'So my view – and I am very clear about this – is that schedule 7 does not cover what happened subject to one thing: if the government has got reason to believe that Greenwald or Miranda were engaged in something I know nothing about then obviously it might cover it – but from what has been said the basis of the stopping was a connection with the Snowden activities.'  Falconer was critical of May who, along with David Cameron, was given advance notice of the police decision to detain Miranda.  Despite such advance notice, Theresa May has maintained that the actual decision to detain Miranda rested with the Police.

BBC 21st August -  No 10 contacted Guradian over Eric Snowden secrets - here we are told that, when the revelations about the American National Security Agency were published,  the Cabinet Secretary was told to contact the Guardian.  Subsequently, staff from GCHQ oversaw the destruction of computer files containing information from NSA which had been leaked by Snowden.   However, The Guardian had copies which were held abroad.  The Head of Legal blog considers whether The Guardian acted under a direction made under the Official Secrets Acts.


New York Times - 2 page article - British newspaper Has Advantages in Battle with Government over Secrets - allegations here of British government interference with the activities of a free press.  In the USA, the press enjoys greater constitutional protection.

Miranda 3 ~ Amendments to the law are already coming

02:24 0 Comments

The use of the Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7 in relation to David Miranda has caused a considerable furore.  Previous posts here and here.

A Bill is already going through Parliament to amend Schedule 7.  It is the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing bill, which has completed its committee stage in the House of Commons.  This will cut the overall maximum period to six hours and introduce other safeguards.  Explanatory Notes to the Bill are available.

The Bill was preceded by a consultation paper

The consultation:

The Home Office consultation put forward questions relating to the following areas:


• Reducing the maximum legal period of examination.

• Requiring a supervising officer to review at regular intervals whether the examination or detention needs to be continued.

• Requiring examining officers to be trained and accredited to use Schedule 7 powers.

• Giving individuals examined at ports the same rights to publicly funded legal advice as those transferred to police stations.  (Here, the consultation noted that practical difficulties may mean that detentions can be prolonged by the time taken for a solicitor to enter the restricted security area at a port. However it is important for an individual to have the right to consult a legal adviser even by telephone).

• Amending the basis for undertaking strip searches to require suspicion and a supervising officer’s authority.

• Repealing the power to take intimate DNA samples from persons detained during a Schedule 7 examination.
 
The government's response to the consultation was published on 11th July 2013.  The need for amendments to the law and practice was accepted by the government.

Changes in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill:

A) Immigration officers, as well as customs officers, will have to be designated for the purposes of Schedule 7.  A code of practice will specify details of training to be undertake by examining officers.

B) There will be one hour limit on the period during which a person may be examined without being detained and an overall six hour limit on the period for which a person may be examined and detained.  Detention of a person under these powers triggers provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 8 including the right to consult a solicitor.

C) There will be amendments to powers relating to searches of persons examined and detained.  The power in Schedule 7 to conduct an intimate search will be removed.

D) The right in Schedule 8 currently refer to those detained at a police station or places designated as such.  Schedule 8 will be amended to give additional rights to those detained under Schedule 7 at ports and airports.

E)  Detention under Schedule 7 will be subject to reviews.  Details of this will be in a Code of Practice.

F)  The Examining Officers Code of Practice will be amended in the light of alterations to the law.

Miranda 2 ~ The Code of Practice

02:07 0 Comments

David Miranda's detention (Previous Post) for 9 hours under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 prompted a huge outcry over 'gross misuse' of terror laws - The Guardian 19th August.   This post takes a look at the Examining Officers Code of Practice and also some amendments to the law which are already under consideration by Parliament.

So far, there appears to have been no official statement from the authorities about the circumstances leading to Miranda's detention though The Guardian notes that:

The Metropolitan police said Miranda had been lawfully detained under the Terrorism Act and later released. "Holding and properly using intelligence gained from such stops is a key part of fighting crime, pursuing offenders and protecting the public," it said in a statement.

Jack of Kent has set out a strong argument that the detention may have been unlawful.  At this stage, it is not actually possible to say in the absence of knowledge about the reasons behind the decision to detain Miranda and the actual interview to which he was subjected.

Schedule 7 does not require
reasonable suspicion and the only requirement appears to be that the detention must be for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).  On that basis, anyone travelling could be subjected to this power because all the authorities need say is - 'We wanted to see if he or she came within section 40(1)(b).'   Of course, the Act is concerned with 'terrorism' and one might expect the authorities to have some reason connected to investigation of terrorism for detaining a particular individual even if, in the strict letter of the law, they do not need any suspicion that the person detained is actually within section 40(1)(b).

This is, in fact, the case since Examining Officers are supposed to operate within the Code of Practice -  Examining Officers under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Code of Practice:

Examining officers are told to take into account that many people selected for examination under Schedule 7 will be 'entirely innocent' of any unlawful activity.  The powers must be used proportionately, reasonably, with respect and without unlawful discrimination Selection of persons for examination must not be solely based on their perceived ethnic background or religion. Powers must be exercised without discrimination on grounds of age, race, colour, religion, creed, gender or sexual orientation.  To do so would be unlawful. An examining officer's decision to exercise their Schedule 7 powers at ports must be based on the threat posed by the various terrorist groups active in and outside the UK.  When deciding whether to exercise their powers, examining officers should base their decisions on a number of considerations including factors such as known and suspected sources of terrorism; individuals or groups whose current or past involvement in acts or threats of terrorism is 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 that a group or individuals involved in terrorist activity could use; emerging local trends or patterns of travel through specific ports.  Schedule 7 powers are to be used solely for the the purpose of ascertaining if the person examined is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.  The powers must not be used to stop and question persons for any other purpose.  An examination must cease and the examinee must be informed that it has ended once is has been ascertained that the person does not appear to be or to have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.