Is it now illegal to photograph police officers?

In her fascination talk about press photography (etc), Pauline Neild mentioned the new law about photographing police officers. It isn't (yet) known in what circumstances amateur photographers will get into serious trouble for taking photographs of police officers. Here is material about the new law, including extracts and commentaries.

The new law is the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and the relevant sections commenced on 16 February. Older laws also cause problems. The question is: what are photographers' rights? No doubt we will discover more in future.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. But I was a close witness as government, blinded by ideology and thwarted by the law of unintended consequences, drove major legislation to inevitable disaster. I am somewhat cynical about government's competence to make law fit for purpose).

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 defines the offence of collecting information (which can include a photograph) likely to be useful to a terrorist. Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to include information about people including "a constable". So it is now an offence (with imprisonment up to 10 years) to collect information, including a photograph, about a police officer, likely to be useful to a terrorist. (These Acts do not state that intent to assist a terrorist is necessary).

If Wikipedia is accurate on this topic, it is illuminating:

The Parliamentary debate on this law was limited owing to the fact that the offence of eliciting or publishing information "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" only applied to people who were or had been members of Her Majesty’s Forces when the Bill was first published as well as throughout the debate in the Standing Committee.

The law against eliciting or publishing information "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" was extended to encompass police constables in a raft of unscrutinized amendments that passed into the Bill at the end of the debate when the Parliamentary timetable (which had been voted on earlier in the day) expired.

When this clause was scrutinized in the House of Lords, and in all subsequent debates, no reference was made to the extension of the law to include police constables.

In the news

Amateur Photographer (9 February 2009): Photographers to stage mass protest

However, last week, the Government insisted that the soon-to-be-introduced law will not increase police powers to stop photographers because the rules are already laid out in existing legislation. This is because, under the current Terrorism Act 2000, it is already an offence to 'collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. Such a 'record' can include 'photographs' and, by implication, covers photographing police officers, according to a Home Office spokesman.

And the new Act will not change the Section 44 Stop-and-Search rule which gives police the right to stop a member of the public without grounds for suspicion.

Holdthefrontpage.co.uk (10 February 2009): New terrorism law 'could curb press photography'

The new Act is expected to strengthen existing powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 for police to stop and search photographers and prevent them from taking pictures in public.

Olivier Laurent, news editor at the British Journal of Photography, said: "It means anyone that takes images or notes anything about police officers, armed services personnel and Her Majesty's servants.... Officers could be over zealous and stop photographers, especially in places such as a press photographer covering protests and it looks as if a police officer is doing something that he does not want to be seen, he could invoke that act. The fact they will be able to detain that person is of great concern for photographers. A lot of them wouldn't know their rights."

In answer to the question whether it gave the green light to officers to arrest photographers for taking pictures of police or military personnel, a Home Office spokesperson said: "It's down to police forces to interpret whether a crime or offence takes place but that's not what Section 76 says."

PhotoNetCast (11 February 2009): Photographers’ Rights and the new UK Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

My commentary: Includes an illuminating but not exhaustive 37 minute podcast.

Guardian (12 February 2009): Documenting dissent is under attack

When you add this to the comments made by Vernon Coaker, the minister for policing, in a letter to the National Union of Journalists in December, things don't look good.

The Coaker letter laid out when the police could "limit" photography in a public place. He wrote: "This may be on the grounds of national security or there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or inflame an already tense situation or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace or to avoid a public order situation or for the person's own safety and welfare or for the safety and welfare of others."

Guardian (12 February 2009): Photographers fear they are target of new terror law

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said the law was not specifically intended for photographers and concerns about how it would be used were speculative. It would be the job of the police and the courts to interpret the law.

The Register (12 February 2009): Photography rights: Snappers to descend on Scotland Yard

In line with the model used in related laws, the offence itself is "strict liability": it is the gathering of information that will be deemed to be the offence, and a defence that the person had a "reasonable excuse for their action" is only allowed after the offence has been charged.

BBC (16 February 2009): Is it a crime to take pictures?

The NUJ said some police officers wrongly believed they had the right to delete photographers' images.

The Metropolitan Police insisted the law was intended to protect counter-terrorism officers and any prosecution would have to be in the public interest.... "Taking photographs of police officers would not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be caught by this offence."

BBC (16 February 2009): Photographers angry at terror law

Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, backed a call by Grimsby MP Austin Mitchell to introduce a formal code to clarify the position of both the police and photographers.

Telegraph (16 February 2009): MPs have a duty to protect our freedoms

The clause is drawn so widely that the police will have little difficulty invoking it to prevent the taking of photographs they simply object to - such as those which show them in an unfavourable light.

Telegraph (17 February 2009): Why can't we take pictures of policemen?

According to the Government, while there are no legal restrictions on photography in public places, "there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations".

The problem is that there are so many instances of counter-terror laws being invoked to stop perfectly innocent activities, such as trainspotting or bird watching, that many photographers do not believe such assurances.

Times (18 February 2009): How we used to mock the Stalinist control

Every officious jobsworth now has a right to stop you, tear out the film or delete the images and issue charges if you cannot convince the police that you are a train spotter or innocent amateur photographer.

My commentary:
As far as I know no one has the right to delete images nor to force the photographer to do so.

Forums

Needless to say, various forums are discussing this topic!

Other laws - Terrorism Act 2000, etc

NCPS Notice: The law and photography - some useful documents

BBC (17 April 2008): Innocent photographer or terrorist?

Austin Mitchell MP has tabled a motion in the Commons that has drawn on cross-party support from 150 other MPs, calling on the Home Office and the police to educate officers about photographers' rights....

"There's a general alarm about terrorism and about paedophiles, two heady cocktails, and police and PCSOs [police community support officers] and wardens and authorities generally seem to be worried about this". Photographers have every right to take photos in a public place, he says, and it's crazy for officials to challenge them when there are so many security cameras around and so many people now have cameras on phones. But it's usually inexperienced officers responsible.

The Register (23 June 2008): The war on photographers - you're all al Qaeda suspects now

Stephen Carroll is a keen amateur photographer, with an interest in candid portraiture: "street photography", he calls it. In December 2007, he was in the centre of Hull taking photos. Unfortunately for him, his actions were spotted by two local policemen. They stopped him in the middle of Boots and asked him to accompany them outside. There they told him that he had been taking photographs of "sensitive buildings". One said: "I am taking your film".

Mr Carroll requested an explanation. He asked whether he was "obligated" to hand over the film. In vain! Every time he asked, back came the same response: "I am taking your film". Robocop is alive and well and apparently working in Humberside. When he eventually handed over his film, he was asked to turn out his pockets and to show what other films he had on him.

BJP (28 January 2009): Jail for photographing police?

Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.

According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.

Photographers' rights - useful reading

NCPS Notice: The law and photography - some useful documents

The Register (23 June 2008): So, what can you photograph?

As far as I know no one has the right to delete images nor to force the photographer to do so.
(Voice from a hospital bed: "I was in the right ... I was in the right"!)

Barry Pearson