In the decade up to March 2018, a total of 725,194 people were ‘examined’ at ports and airports in the UK to determine whether they were or are ‘concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism’. The stops took place under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Before 2009, review of Schedule 7 was light, focusing on the overuse of ‘intuitive stops’ without reference to compatibility with rights. Later reviews by civil society, researchers, parliamentary committees, the Home Office, and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation highlighted the rights-and discrimination-related concerns that these powers gave rise to. However, it seemed that the Government, politicians and the media had ‘not the slightest interest in Schedule 7’ until David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow Airport in the midst of the Snowden revelations. Miranda challenged the use of Schedule 7, with the Court of Appeal finding that the powers were partly incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It was only after this judgment that the Government appeared to take seriously the need for change, even though numerous reviews had identified problems of rights, equality and procedure in respect of Schedule 7. Our interviewees told us how a number of different review mechanisms in the counter-terrorism review assemblage worked together to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Court of Appeal finding in order to try to bring about change.

The story of Schedule 7 suggests that, even where review reveals significant flaws, a government that is committed to a certain counterterrorism law or policy is ‘obviously not going to listen until something dramatic happens’. It indicates that different review mechanisms can amplify and support one another, building a case for change, but that a ‘hard nudge’, such as an adverse court decision or change in political priorities, might be needed for that change to happen. It underlines how, as the material in this chapter will show, politics, personality, media attention and professional cultures all influence how review takes place and how it is received.