The crux of whether people will still be stopped or not lays on the interpretation of "reasonable suspicion" of being a terrorist. The definition for Terrorist under part V of the act can be found in section 40 which points to a number of provisions outlining activity that my constitute terrorism. Most important to us as photographers is s48 which states that:
(1) A person commits an offence if?
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2) In this section ?record? includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.
It all depends on how good the police legal/ policy departments are in helping constables/PCSOs interpret "reasonable". I've had a scan of legal commentary relating to the Gillan case, and it is seems accepted that reasonable suspicion would equate to evidence or strong suggestion of close links with or attachment to terrorist organisations. I couldn't find any judicial reasoning regarding whether this would relate to a subjective Reasonable Constable test or whether it is a more objective Reasonable Person test (eg whether average police officer would reasonably suspect terrorism or whether the average civilian would given the circumstances)
It will be interesting to see if this changes anything. I think we'll still see searches taking place, then hopefully people will have the time/effort to challenge these decisions in the court to get a clear interpretation of reasonableness in this context. If we're honest, the Police liked the power S 44 gave them and were able to use it blatantly for purposes to which it clearly didn't apply. I don't think they'll give up so easily.
