Metropolitan Police publish summary of law about photography

This continues the discussion about what the law says about when we can take photographs, whether we can take photographs of police officers, and what powers the police have to stop us. Previous articles here were:

Now the Metropolitan Police Service "has published advice for photographers who want to take photographs in the capital. The advice covers number of areas and is suitable both for amateur and professional photographers. The advice also summarises the guidance which is given to officers regarding photographers."

Unfortunately, this omits some important facts, and still leaves some confusion. From the British Journal of Photography: "Nowhere is it stated that officers do not have power to delete images or confiscate data cards without a court order. It is not enough just to say that they have the power to seize and retain articles on the basis of reasonable suspicion".
And from the Telegraph: "What, for example, counts as a “reasonable suspicion” that someone’s photos were likely to be useful for committing terrorism?"

The summary does, however, make it clear: "Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.... The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.... It should ordinarily be considered inappropriate to use Section 58a to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests, as without more, there is no link to terrorism."

But it also points out: "Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.... There is however nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable."

Amateur Photographer reported: "Asked whether it had been endorsed by the Home Office, a spokesman told Amateur Photographer (AP): 'The Home Office has got nothing to do with it.' The spokesman confirmed that newly appointed Home Office Minister David Hanson still plans to issue a separate circular to police regarding the controversial law that makes it a potential offence to photograph a police officer. He said the police circular will be issued in 'the near future' and that there are 'still ongoing discussions with police' about it."

The Guardian published an opinion: "The police take on anti-terrorism laws is creating a hostile environment for photography in London's public spaces."

And something for tall members of NCPS to be aware of: Kent Police set a new legal precedent last week, as they arrested a photographer on the unusual grounds of "being too tall"!

" ... a PCSO and WPC quickly joined the fray. Turner took a photo of the pair, and was promptly arrested. It is unclear from his own account precisely what he was being arrested for. However, he does record that the WPC stated she had felt threatened by him when he took her picture, referring to his size - 5' 11" and about 12 stone - and implying that she found it intimidating. Turner claims he was handcuffed, held in a police van for around 20 minutes, and forced to provide ID before they would release him. He was then searched in public by plain clothes officers who failed to provide any ID before they did so. Following his release, he further claims that the police confirmed he was at liberty to take photographs, so long as - according to the PCSO - he did not take any photographs of the police."

Things to remember:

This saga will continue - watch this space.

Barry Pearson