I went down to Chatham High Street today to take some pictures of the flyover being demolished (that’s another post to come) and to use up a film I’ve had in a camera for over a year. Doing so had some unexpected consequences…
This photo…
Suspect behaviour
led to this photo…
Questions in the High Street
which led to this form…
Unjustified
which led to this letter…
To the Professional Standards Department
RE: Complaint relating to the behaviour of police officer xxxxx, police officer xxxxx and PCSO xxxxx.
At around 11.45am on the 08/07/09 police Officer xxxxx placed me under arrest in Chatham High Street. Officer xxxxx stated I was being arrested under section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000 and read me my rights. As I was arrested I was handcuffed. I asked why she had arrested me. She stated because I had taken a photograph of her and that she considered this to be an unlawful obstruction. After a short time I was led up the High Street and detained in a police van for around 20 minutes. It is my view officer xxxxx had no reasonable grounds to arrest and detain me under section 44 of the Act. The arrest was made immediately after I photographed xxxxx whilst voluntarily waiting as she spoke to a colleague on the phone in relation to me being requested to stop by PCSO xxxxx and officer xxxxx’s subsequent involvement.
The relevant events leading to the arrest are as follows: I was initially stopped by two men in the High Street close to Snappy Snaps. The men did not identify themselves though stated that they worked for Medway Council. I saw a badge attached to one of the men’s waistband and saw the logo of Kent Police. The men asked me why I was taking pictures in the High Street. I told them photography was a hobby and explained what and who I had taken pictures of and why. The camera was an Olympus OM1 which is an analogue film camera so I was therefore unable to show them a preview of the pictures I had taken. The men asked me to provide them with details about my identity. I asked them under what authority they were making their request. They did not provide a clear answer to this question in that they failed to state the legal authority under which they were making their enquiries. I stated it was my belief that I was not legally obliged to provide them with any further information and was choosing not to do so. They said that if I did provide the details they requested then they would contact the police. I did not argue the point or move away. One of the men then used his phone as the other flagged down PCSO xxxxx who was walking down the High Street from the Rochester end. The same line of questioning and responses followed. We were then joined by officer xxxxx who again came from the Rochester end of the High Street. Once again the same line of questioning followed until such time I was arrested. At no time did I refuse to give an account for myself and my activities in the High Street.
After sitting in the police van for around 20 minutes the outer back doors were opened and I was spoken to through the locked inner cage by officers xxxxx and xxxxx, both of whom were in plain clothes and neither of which produced their warrant cards. They spoke about the threat of terrorism. They were keen to seek my agreement with regards to the views they expressed, both about the threat of terrorism and the suspicious nature of people with cameras and especially those who chose not to provide identifying details about themselves when requested to do so. I was asked if I would now provide details regarding my identity. I asked, taking into account I was now under arrest, handcuffed and detained, if I was obliged to do so. They stated that I was and said that if I did not I would be taken to the police station. I indicated I could not physically provide any proof of my identity whilst handcuffed and locked in the van. They let me out. I asked to be unhandcuffed. The request was refused. I informed officer xxxxx details of my identity were in my wallet which was in my inside jacket pocket. Officer xxxxx placed his hand inside my jacket pocket and removed my wallet upon which he opened it and could see my photo card driving license. He passed the wallet to one of his colleagues who took it away. Officer xxxxx then proceeded to search my pockets and pat me down. It is my assertion the refusal to remove the handcuffs was unjustified and perpetuated the use of unreasonable force. At no time had I made any physical resistance or attempts to move away whilst being questioned by any of the police officers, the PCSO or the two unidentified men claiming to work for Medway Council. I was not informed by officer xxxxx the object of his search nor the grounds or authorisation for it. It is my understanding that as officer xxxxx was in plain clothes he was also obliged to produce his warrant card prior to conducting his pat down and search of my pockets which he did not. Furthermore it is my understanding that as the search was in public the officer is only authorised to require me to take of an outer jacket, jacket and gloves. Officer xxxxx required me to take of my trainers and patted down the undersides of both feet.
For a further 5-10 minutes I stood in the street in full view of passers by handcuffed and accompanied and intermittently spoken to by officers xxxxx and xxxxx. Whilst sharing their views about the threat of terrorism officer xxxxx stated she had felt threatened by me when I took her picture. I cannot recall exactly what she said but I do recall her referring to my size and inferring she found it intimidating at the time (I am 5ft 11in and weigh about 12 stone). Presently officer xxxxx returned and released the handcuffs. Officer xxxxx stated he was satisfied with the results of checks which his colleague(s) had made. He put his hand out for me to shake, apologised for the inconvenience, stated that he hoped I understood given the ‘strange’ times we are in and left in an unmarked car with officer xxxxx.
Officer xxxxx then presented herself to me and asked if I had been informed that I had been dearrested; I stated that I had not at which point she proceeded to do so. She also offered a verbal apology and her hand for me to shake. I asked if I was free to go and continue to take pictures in the High Street, she informed me that I was; PCSO xxxxx added as long as you don’t take any pictures of us. At this point I walked away feeling upset, embarrassed and traumatised by the events.
I believe the way I was treated was unjustified and wholly disproportionate. I assert that officer xxxxx misused her powers of arrest and demonstrated a poor understanding of the law in relation to arrest, the use of force, the use of detention, photography in public places, obstruction and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000. Furthermore I assert that officer xxxxx is unsuitable to act as a police officer or at the very least requires further training if she is intimidated by a male of an unremarkable stature taking a single picture with a camera pointed in her direction. I assert that officer xxxxx failed to follow the correct procedures when conducting his search of me and perpetuated the use of unreasonable force by refusing to release me from handcuffs. I assert that PCSO xxxxx demonstrated an unacceptable attitude by making a veiled threat towards me in relation to my future activities as an amateur photographer. I seek for these matters to be fully investigated, the process and outcomes of which I request to be shared with me. With regards to redress I seek a written apology in relation to any shortfalls identified with regards to the involved officer’s conduct and consideration of compensation to be made to me for the upset, embarrassment and psychological trauma caused. I would also like Kent and Medway Police to liaise with Medway Council in order to identify the two unidentified men that initially stopped and questioned me. I seek for their conduct to also be fully investigated, the process and outcomes of which I request to be shared with me.
Yours sincerely
Cc – The independent monitor of the implementation of anti-terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, The House of Lords London SW1A 0AA.
————————————————————
I know a fair few people may say serves you right for a number of reasons. My reponse to that is it will serve you right when you wake up one day and realise you don’t live in a free country anymore. I’ve been stopped nearly a dozen time under section 44. Up until now I’ve always provided my details. Today I decided not to. Seems that when I choose to exercise my rights I get arrested, cuffed and detained for doing so. Yossarian would appreciate the logic in that.
————————————————————
That’s outrageous on a number of levels. You are perfectly within your rights to photograph the police in a public place and you deserve a full apology in response to your excellent letter. Your assertion that “…officer xxxxx is unsuitable to act as a police officer or at the very least requires further training…” says it all.
I hope your experience won’t deter you from continuing to photograph in the street. Street photography is an important form of social documentary. If photographers’ rights are eroded, or people are intimidated into not using their camera in the street, the only photographs of our public places in the future will be those taken by the CCTVs of a society browbeaten into paranoia by an an appalling self-serving government and its media whores.
Agreed with the statement above that photography in the high Street is an important form of social documentation. I would hate to see life boxed into the point of view from CCTV.
Not only were your basic human rights violated, but from the events explained it appears as if excessive force that perhaps could have been perceived as prejudice may also play a part in this.
The irony of the Medway Council workers not identifying themselves and officers speaking of “threats of terroism” and “strange times ” clearly speaks for itself
You have articulated yourself very well in your letter of complaint and hope that you will indeed keep us updated with any further action. I wish you the very best.
*******
I think secretly this amounts to not wanting the public to know She shops at Primark…
i think its unbelievable that you can be arrested basically because that woman felt threatened by having her picture taken once, when we are pretty much filmed everywhere we go under the guise of public safety and preventing ‘terrorism’… surely, by you taking her picture, you were doing a public service by adding to the vast collection of images already kept? seems to me that the real threat to the people might be coming from closer to home than we think.
This is disgusting! How amazing that with the average behaviour of individuals in Chatham High Street, the only person the police can find to arrest and search, is a respectable individual taking a few street photographs.
As has been said previously, their conduct does call into question their level of training and ability to effectively carry out their duties. It also calls to question their ability to make judgements and have a worthwhile effect in the High Street. I’m sure while concentrating on you, they happily ignored the behaviour of the many undesirables that make Chatham High Street what it is today.
Words fail me Alex. I’m totally appalled and I completely sympathise with you. It’s beyond belief that in this country anyone could be questioned, let alone arrested, simply for taking a photo in the street. The idea that that alone can be grounds for suspicion of terrorism, without any other evidence, is completely and utterly insane. I think you’ve got a very good case for saying that they exceeded their powers under the law.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml
Good luck.
Everybody else has said it already, so I won’t comment on the clear violation of your human rights, or of your rights as a photographer. Or the misinterpretation and subsequent abuse of Section 44. If we weren’t able to take photos of police, they could do what they liked, couldn’t they? Like, oh, I don’t know, beat somebody relentlessly at a peaceful protest, or kick someone repeatedly while they were already on the ground not resisting.
So my thoughts are:
Write to MPs requesting support of photographers’ rights and adequate training for police officers.
Write to the papes
Demand an apology from the police
(Not just you doing these things, all of us)
And with tongue in cheek:
Sending a random assortment of dwarves, munchkins and children with cameras into the High Street to check intimidation levels, gradually upping their heights with the aid of built up shoes.
We support you fully, Alex.
Lisa xo
Fuck… much food for thought here. It’s left me a little bit lost for words, to be honest. The only articulate response I can come up with so far is that it’s yet further evidence of my long-held belief that those who seek positions of authority are actually those least fit to hold them. But then, I recognise that this does a disservice to those who do actually understand that power comes with responsibility. Hope you’re OK.
I am just amazed that you were subjected to this sort of treatment.
What a gross overreaction. As has been said already, we are filmed everywhere we go by CCTV. I am not sure why the Police officer would consider a picture of her would be considered a possible contravention of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, when she is in plain view of anyone who wants to see her. If you were taking pictures of her for reasons related to terrorism, I would find it rather unlikely that you would stand in front of her and do so, rather than take cover somewhere and use a large zoom type lens to make sure you were not detected. This smacks of petty bureaucracy the type that is bringing this country down and possibly collusion by the council employees with the Police to deal with anyone who doesn’t behave in a subservient manner and tow “The Establishment Line”. What did the council employees have to hide?
I would pursue this through the Police complaints commission…
All that said I am still shocked at how you were treated…I am fairly cynical person by nature myself and not very much surprises me these days, but this I am afraid does…
Good luck with this issue and it comes to something when you cant walk down Chatham High Street and take a picture anymore. What has the world come to?
LIsa made a fair point. Forget the dwarves though. Seriously, perhaps all us photographers, and our families, should take cameras onto the streets for one day of protest. Photograph everything in the High Streets of the 4 Medway Towns. Announce the protest in advance, tell the police, tell them they will be photographed every step of the way. Tell them their abuses must stop, now. Publish the photos. Publish the police’s details. Ask the police why they hassle innocent citizens yet do nothing about the theft of public funds regularly perpetrated by Medway Council employees. Notice that when you ask the police this by email, you will have to send your complaint about Medway Council to an email address that ends in medway.gov.uk (thats the council’s server). I might do that myself. And whilst I’m at it, I might ask why they arrested you, Alex, for taking pics of a chip shop, and didn’t arrest the 15 guys who kicked me in a few years back, even though they had CCTV of them all.
Serious, anybody up for a day of protest this August? I’m sure if there were a few hundred of us it’d be something they couldn’t ignore. I’m up for it. I could advertise it in AP and the others mags in advance. They’re always talking about this issue. Anybody in then email me on dave@davewise.biz
Something has to be done about this. I wish I knew how.
This should be front page news. Interesting to see how the very people insisting on removing civil liberties in the name of “preventing terrorism” react on the receiving end. Interesting… and more than a little horrifying.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the police knew the laws? It’s worth writing to Amateur Photographer and relating this story – it would make a great story for their “AP Rights Watch” campaign.
Thanks for posting your story.
Lisa
Having been through a similar experience – although thankfully not arrested – I can only sympathise. I feel no surprise that the police are still over-exerting their powers.
It always strikes me as being the most insidious form of propaganda that the police use – repeatedly trying to get you to agree that we live in dangerous times. Almost as if agreeing with them is a short-cut to release. It reminds me of 1984’s Winston Smith being continually asked how many fingers he could see being held up.
Well done for your calm and professional letter. I know how gut wrenchingly awful it is to have to go through the event again and again. I hope the letter receives a positive response and – at the very least – the officers involved will get some training on the issue.
Take care, remember that you are in the right and they are in the wrong.
T
This is appalling.
Great letter though – I shall be following your story with interest; such an articulate and clearly drafted complaint deserves an equally complete response!
Here’s the guidelines for any law enforcers reading:
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
My silent protest will be made. I shall make sure I take a photo of the Police outside Dalston station every time I pass them until this is resolved.
To be honest you should count yourself lucky you didn’t get sent to Guantanamo. Out of interest what is your “ethnic background”?
Absolutely absurd – completely highlights the ignorance prevalent throughout a large amount of the police (and also PCSOs) out there.
this is the advice given in the met region, it is Section 58a which relates to taking pictures of police officers .
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
Section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000
Section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000 covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of the armed forces, intelligence services or police.
Any officer making an arrest for an offence under Section 58a must be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that the information was of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
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.
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.
Guidelines for MPS staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews
Contact with photographers, reporters and television crews is a regular occurrence for many officers and staff. The media influences our reputation so it’s crucial to maintain good working relations with its members, even in difficult circumstances.
Following these guidelines means both media and police can fulfil their duties without hindering each other.
So, if you were “de-arrested”, do you still qualify for the US visa waiver programme?
From the documentation at http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/VWP-QUICKREF(2).pdf
“Have you complied with the conditions of previous admissions to the United States and have not been found ineligible for a U.S. visa?
* “If you have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, have a criminal record, have certain serious communicable illnesses, have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed on the VWP, you may not be eligi-ble for VWP travel and should not attempt to travel without a visa.”
it looks as though you may not be. Therefore, will you be seeking compensation for the not inconsiderable additional expense of having an agent seek and acquire a visa for any entry to the US you may wish to make at any time in the future?
[...] photographers can take photos in public hasn’t reached Chatham yet, where a photographer was arrested under the Terrorism Act only yesterday for taking a photo of a police officer while being quizzed as to why he was taking [...]
Bloody hell, if that been in another counrty, the british govenment would be saying that it unfair and unjust law, but seems to be ok here. Free state or police state?
Do not allow the police to deal with this ‘informally’.
They will ask you to sign a document that will let them do this – refuse.
Make a complaint to the IPCC immediately.
Make a complaint to your MP, who should pass it on to the Chief Constable. This ensures that the complaint doesn’t ‘get lost’.
When the IPCC and Prof’ Standards have finished i.e.
give their conclusions, sue in the County Court for
wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.
Ask for costs and punitive damages at £500 per hour or part thereof.
SUE man. I’m normally not one to suggest something like that, but geeze, that is just wrong. I was pulled over by the cops once for taking pictures in a public park and I had asked permission from everybody I was photographing. I was doing this for my employer at the time, which was THE CITY. The officer saw my ID badge and was surprised. He still called in and had them call my supervisor to verify they had me out there shooting for work. Had I not been doing the photography for work I don’t know what would have happened, but it might not have been good. I hope they didn’t ask you to turn oer the images or anything like that. This whole thing is a HUGE violation of your rights. Who’s to say you were not shooting for the local paper. I seriously hope you get some sort of compensation out of your troubles, being humiliated like that can be traumatic.
Lost for words and not surprised all at the same time.
I have nothing constructive to add that has not already been scrawled above.
Met David Hartshorn (Snr Const Public Order) earlier this year, just for an informal chat in a pub. Based on what he said (All recorded) they’re very aware of these sorts of problems, but there’s not much chance to re-educate the people that need to understand how 44 etc actually work. (or are supposed to!)
I’m pretty sure that terrorists are fully aware of all of this rubbish and send their kids with a nice 12mp Ixus to shoot the front of mi5… Sad times *controversial!*
I agree fully with the last comment by Hg. I have sat with my jaw dropped throughout reading this, I am completely shocked at this for you and cannot begin to imagine how awful you must have felt while this was happening to you – along Chatham High St of all places – the petty thieves and actual criminals probably had a field day filling their pockets while the police busied themselves with you… Unbelievable.
That’s absolutely ludicrous, not to mention appalling behavior by a servant of the public. I cringe to think if that sort of behavior spreads to our side of the ocean (it has, in many instances) but nowhere near as prevalent as it seems in the UK.
Hi
I’ve added a link to this page from urban75’s growing section on Photographers’ Rights and the law.
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
I hope you get an appropriate and decent response from them to your requests and that having the situation spelled out to them in such a way will effect some level of change and, perhaps, instil a respect for “Joe Public” that may be lacking in “these strange times”.
Good on you and I hope you are not deterred to carry on photographing… I have been enjoying your pictures for some time
We live in a police state since 9/11. That has given them all the excuse they need. Same goes for busybody members of the public and councils, etc. Yet the bastards can film us on CCTV as much as they like.
Police in this country used to be well trained and exercise something old fashioned called ‘common sense’. I’m afraid that has all gone out of the window now. You are guilty unless you can somehow prove that you are not a terrorist or are a person of a non-threatening nature. Would they have treated you the same way if you had been a muslim? Or would that have been even worse?
I agree with the comments regarding how important these photos will be in the future, especially with the regenaration that is taking place. You only have to look at how popular the books are that have photos of Medway past. I love looking at them and comparing how things have changed.
Good luck with your complaint. You have every right to be angry. I do hope that you have contacted the local papers.
Hmmm… Worrying times for sure.
Arresting someone under Section 44 is a highly contented point at present, especially as you are not the first photographer arrested for just such a reason. Sadly, I don’t think you will be the last.
The fact of the matter is with mobile phones carrying significantly tech-savvy cameras on the back, it won’t be too long till we’re all being nicked down Chatham town for making a phonecall whilst in the vicinity of a PCSO. Hyperbolic claims maybe, but then I would have said that in ten years ago if someone could suggest that a person could be arrested for taking a photo in a public place…
It’s been said many a time before, but we cannot sleepwalk into a rugged roughshod state of CCTV watching our every move, but us not being able to watch them back. It’s disconcerting for sure…
I can feel a documentary on the issue in the making… Hmmm.
Tom.
Hi Monaxle,
Just goes to show how some people over react these days.
Sent a pdf file to Lisa Dillion which states our rights as “street photographers”, makes interesting reading. It does point out that we are not breaking any laws.
Contact me by email and I will forward it to you.
Glad they let you go by the way!
Keep us posted of any future confontations with the law you made have!
All the best,
Chris
The Chief Inspector of Constabulary Denis O’Connor inadvertantly nailed this when he stated that since a large part of the population now carries some kind of camera, either digital or on a phone, police tactics will have to change because, especially at demos, their actions are subjected to “enormous scrutiny”
This seems to be a tacit admission that the police are used to acting outside of the law safe in the knowledge that they are very unlikely to be called to account and now this is changing they are unsure of themselves
Info from this blog gives details of the advice the Met give about photography in public places: http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2009/07/09/met-police-issue-advice-to-amateur-photographers/
It would be interesting to contact Kent Police and Medway Council to ask them what their guidelines suggest.
One minor detail – it is interesting to note that they chose to note the location as Military Road rather than Chatham High Street on your Stop’n'Search form.
As someone who regularly photographs around the Medway Towns I am chilled by this – how long will it be before I get nicked?
This has happened to me, and many of my colleagues during our masters in International Journalism in London.
Within minutes of getting our cameras (videos and stills) we’ve been stopped without justification just as you have.
It’s particularly embarrassing as it’s an international course, and my colleagues from abroad have been so shocked by the surveillance society we live in…
Sad times.
Might be worth checking if Chatham High Street has been designated as an area for s44 searches as this needs to be done at least every 28 days.
(See s46, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5)
Very well worded letter, I wouldn’t have been able to restrain myself to be articulate enough.
I also believe that these silly acts only cover the photographing of police constables, of which PCSOs are not?
The Met’s attack on photographers
The police take on anti-terrorism laws is creating a hostile environment for photography in London’s public spaces
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/photography-anti-terrorism-regulations
I loath how we’ve given up our freedom so easily to assist the hunt for terrorists. Those new laws now in turn are being used to stifle the very freedoms we as people have been blessed with, and our grandfathers fought to retain.
Only a radical muslim wins when the freedom of those who live in a democratic government is lost in the fight against those who’s beliefs do not allow for such freedom and democracy in the first place…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk-terror-law-to-make-photographing-police-illegal.html
That’s me on a watch list then…
“And with tongue in cheek:
Sending a random assortment of dwarves, munchkins and children with cameras into the High Street to check intimidation levels, gradually upping their heights with the aid of built up shoes.”
id better go last then… theyd hang me i suspect.
It’s somewhat ironic that the MET published this today http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
You seem to be the sort of chap who can stick up for himself.
More power to your elbow!
[...] yesterday following his arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation. Read it and weep. Section 44 in Chatham High Street. | monaxle : blog Let's hope the Rozzers don't try to stop Flying Lawyer taking his lawful pictures. This post is [...]
This is truly despicable.
I’m up for a mass photography demonstration!
Paul Moss
Well, the others have already said it all so I won’t echo those feeling with which I heartily agree.
Perhaps Kent Police (and particularly Medway Division) ought to heed some of the stuff coming out of the inquiry into the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the G20 demonstrations earlier this year; it doesn’t make pretty reading for the police when amateur footage of police abuse is welcomed by some MPs.
Perhaps we ought to have a Medway flickr group photo session of the High St. and the demolition of the flyover?
Oh, and how do Medway Council expect photographers to contribute local photographs to their crappy competitions if their (unknown and unidentifiable) employees bring unwarranted police action against said snappers?
Would it not be the case that the officers in question are now open to charges of unlawful arrest and assault?
They asserted you were being arrested under section 44 and gave completely invalid reasons for doing so. Indeed, as far as I am aware, section 44 does not confer any powers of arrest, only those of search. Nor is one obliged under section 44 to provide an officer with any personal details.
Of course, it’s your word against theirs. Same as it ever was.
Anyways, glad you came out of it reasonably okay, thanks for the excellent reporting, and I hope you get the apologies you deserve.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5
What a load of bollux!
Craig
I agree with much of the comment already made about police over reaction, and that they probably over reacted with a purpose.
But the thing that has not yet been examined is the role of the initial unidentified Medway Council staff. Undoubtedly they have been appointed as members of “the wider police family” to use a phrase of Jacqui Smith/Timney when she was Home (Economics) Secretary. The clue is in the badge. I can’t immediately remember the reference, but I believe that they have the power to demand ID, and to refuse is an offence.
Now that the Met seems to be claiming that it has seen sense on its persecution of photographers (and eventually will get the message out to the provinces as well), we must start to take on these jumped up not even PCSOs from the Council.
Sue them.
Make them give you money.
Do it.
Do it today.
[...] http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/[...]
Interesting point, Yokel. I’ve done some digging and I believe you are referring to accredited persons whose powers can be found here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020030_en_22#sch5
They have the power to demand your name and address only if they have reason to believe you have committed certain types of offences, which are (at most):
(a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of any powers exercisable by the accredited person by virtue of paragraph 1; or
(b) an offence the commission of which appears to the accredited person to have caused—
(i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or
(ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person’s property;
The offences listed in paragraph 1 are:
(a) the power of a constable in uniform to give a person a fixed penalty notice under section 54 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalty notices) in respect of an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 (c. 50) (riding on a footway) committed by cycling;
(b) the power of an authorised officer of a local authority to give a notice under section 4 of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 (c. 20) (fixed penalty notices in respect of dog fouling); and
(c) the power of an authorised officer of a litter authority to give a notice under section 88 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (fixed penalty notices in respect of litter).
As far as I can tell the accredited persons had no power to ask for Alex’s name or address, unless his photographs were causing people alarm or distress.
And that last is probably the stickler.
@Dee causing alarm and distress is not sufficient reason to require name and address you need to do that by committing an offence.
I take it that you didn’t shake hands. It’s a gesture of respect they didn’t deserve.
Most of the danger in these times comes from the police not the terrorists.
Don’t worry, Dave Wise (and others). Medway Eyes is already on it, and has been since the crack of dawn. Here’s what’s going to happen. You’re all invited:
Monaxle is a core member of Medway Eyes, which doesn’t like abuses of power very much, so……..
Having just spoken to Alex (Monaxle), we are organising a protest for the middle of August (exact date to be confirmed). We have a few ideas on how we’ll go about it, but welcome your input and, of course, your attendance on the day.
It is important to defend our rights. They are being eroded at every turn.
You can be sure that Medway Eyes will work absolutely within the law and for maximum impact.
Watch http://www.medwayeyes.co.uk for updates.
Alternatively, find us on Flickr, Twitter, Facebook and MySpace. or address any direct questions to medwayeyes@gmail.com.
@Tug
I don’t understand what you’re saying.
I think the law is trying to provide a get out for these accredited persons. If they have reason to believe that Alex’ photography is causing someone alarm and distress, they can then swoop in with their busy body powers and demand his details.
You have a different take ( which I really want to agree with, by the way). Can you please spell it out for me? I spent a good 20 minutes staring at legalese and it’s totally stuffed my ability to understand English.
)
Alex, what can I say. This is a terrible abuse of power by a couple of power crazed idiots. I can only hope that you will get an apology. I won’t however be holding my breathe.
In the 70’s my old man was arrested because he had an Irish accent and was stood next to a telephone box; the assertation was that he had used the phone box to make a bomb threat some days earlier. Presumably British “Intelligence” at the time assumed that IRA bombers were thick enough to stand by the telephone until arrested. The problem that you have here, is that your average PCSO is really poorly trained and they want to make a bit of a name for themselves. If she felt intimidated then maybe she should consider how wise a career move she has made. I’d go along with the mass rally of people in fancy dress. Maybe we could all come along as great terrorists and dictators from history? Don’t wear a beard though, cause everyone knows that modernday terrorists have beards.
There are so many things wrong with this happening.In short…it’s a disgrace.
Alex, we’re on it…
http://www.medwayeyes.co.uk/events
Cheers for chipping in everyone. Glad it’s not just me that thinks the way I do about these issues. Thanks for being so thoughtful in what you all have to say.
BTW I got a very encouraging response this morning from Lord Carlile (The independent monitor of the implementation of anti-terrorism legislation) whose taken an interest and wants to be kept informed about the progress of the complaint. The British Journal of Photography have also been in touch and are interested in doing a story.
I’d like to respond to all the comments but not right now as I’m off out down the Eagle for a bit of Lupen Crook and The Murderbirds.
Keep your Medway Eyes open. I will be. Cheers.
When I read stuff like this it makes me glad I left the UK to live in another country. I wouldn’t have given them my ID either…..
Good luck with the fight but I think you are too late in the UK, freedom is gone.
the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about [members of armed forces] … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places.
if the officer claims you are intimidating them that is the grounds for the arrest
I had a similarly frustrating time in Newcastle when I was out with my troop of 5 soldiers. We had had a fantastic night without any trouble until one of my lads got glassed in a crowded bar. Despite the fact that he had a head injury, he was immediately arrested without any attempt to find the culprit. I was annoyed at the heavy handed manner in which my soldier had been treated so I asked the officer for an explanation. The arrests were made by an officer not wearing any numbers on the shoulders of his police jacket. I asked him for his number so I could lodge a formal complaint and was informed that I would be arested for breach of the peace if I did not move away.
I pursued the matter as long as I thought I could before we were banned from the city. I went straight to the police station to complain but was told to return the next day when I was at work and hence unable to complain. A letter to the Police Complaints Commission returned no reply.
You wouldn’t think we all work for the same government. I would like to think that as serving soldiers we would be offerred at least the same respect as a regular civilian – from your blog I think we were!!
Alex
Let me add to the many voices of support already in this thread. Your letter was a magnificently judicious response. If you feel like being a bit less responsible, you might like to enter the Fitwatch “Policewatch” competition (scroll down on this webpage for details – http://visionontv.org). There’s a special prize for the first photo of copper trying to use this legislation. In general, our practice is “naming and shaming” to try to stop this type of legislation being used – see http://is.gd/1sHcN
Best wishes
Richard
Good luck with your complaint, Alex. What happened to you is despicable and must not be tolerated in a free country.
I am staggered at this although not surprised, it would appear that recent times this countries police force have changed their principles from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. I have been stopped twice and searched under this act and I am convinced that it was just to keep the numbers up.
The other week I was topped in my car in the early hours of the morning as I was on my way home from work. I had my camera and most of you know I always take the opportunity to capture what I can at night. I was driving around the country and turned around in a driveway at the back of the Kent showground. As I pulled in there was a police car parked there. (probably keeping out of the way) anyway as I drove off he followed me and I just knew he would stop me. Anyway about 4 miles down the road sure enough his lights cam on and we were in a road no wider than 7 feet. There was nowhere to pull over so I just had to stop.
By this time he had time to check my details out via the car reg info they have on us all. His opening gambit was that I sped off when I saw him because he felt my intention was to break into the Kent show ground. I was staggered at this and of course went on the offensive. He questioned me and of course I was at best very forthright with him (he was on his own) I was able to cover all questions even to the point when he questioned my route home. I pointed out that we still lived in a free country and I was able to drive down any road at any time of day and night and he or any other police officer couldn’t stop me. The conversation went on like that for a while and of course he had nothing on me or could do nothing but his closing gambit was to say that I had an attitude problem (said as he walked away)
I thought what a prize knob
Abledime – We’re aware of the new laws that came into force earlier this year. However, those relate to terrorism. It is not practical on any level for the police to arrest everyone who takes a photo of them – this just doesn’t work at ground level, particularly when inexperienced officers use new laws unnecessarily and without discrimination. Police are present everywhere; at community events, football matches, demos and in the high street, as Alex found out.
Claiming to be intimidated just because somebody has a camera, purely in order to justify an arrest, is just open to too much abuse. Surely our police officers should be made of tougher stuff than that. Be intimidated by a knife, by a fist, by a gun. But for fuck’s sake, don’t be intimidated by a camera. The police have one reason, and one reason only, to be intimidated by a camera, and that’s because they are doing something they shouldn’t be. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, isn’t that right?
It really staggers me the lows this country seems to have decended to with regards to the police control of innocent people.
I’ve never been arrested/cautioned etc. myself, but I have taken thousands of photographs in public places, including towns and cities, and the thought of having to suffer the unjustified treatment you mention here leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Oh my goodness, I am a rather timid persona dnif this happened to me I think I would be in a terrible state. i cannot believe you were handcuffed, how awful.
i realise that we do live in strange times and terrorism is something we all have to be weary of. But i still cannot understand what a terrorist would do with a picture of a police person. they are hardly going to attack one person.
Luckily I use a digiatl camera so at least i would be able to show them my images but even so, what sort of country are we now living in.
Totally support your challenge on this. Someone totally over reacted in this case and you had completely justifiable reasons to be photographing the area in relation the recent news stories.
I hope you get recompense. In addition, I would be very interested in knowing why Medway Council employees were patrolling the highstreet…
About that demonstration idea. How about if there could be normally dressed people at the back, with their digital cameras, known as ‘WMD’s’, or ‘Weapons of Mass Documentation’, and then well known terrorists at the front, such as robin hood, nelson mandela, che guervara, joan of arc, davey crockett and of course henry the fifth (‘I see you stand like papparazzi in the slips, straining upon the red carpet. The games afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this charge cry, ‘God for David Bailey, England, and Fox Talbot!’) all with pinhole cameras. There could even be a chitty chitty bang bang child catcher (he wasn’t a terrorist, he worked for the government, that bits just for fun and a bit of irony). The pinhole cameras will need about 30 seconds for each exposure but if Robin pisses the police off enough they should give him a kicking for a minute at least, way long enough to catch them in the act.
Seriously, it’ll make a well good film. Get worldwide coverage and perhaps expose the stupidity of this law and our law-enforcers at the same time.
There are various guides to photographers’ rights.
I would like someone knowledgeable to make up a check list / form which could be kept in the pocket or bag then if harassed by the police you can go through checking what rights you have and what powers they actually have then record these on the form. With spaces for all the details of the various persons involved – “refused to identify himself” can be entered clearly in front of them if they will not identify themself.
It can ensure than you record all the required details for a complaint though I suppose you could carry a complaint form for the IPCC and enter direct into that!
Print this link off and carry it around, it clearly states that taking pictures of police is allowed, they do have powers if they have ‘reasonable suspicion of terrorist intent’ though.
Opps forget link
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
opps here is link
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
A very well written account.
It is a shame we now have such poorly trained bully boys (and girls) wandering around with their radios just looking to annoy their customers. Meanwhile the real criminals go free courtesy of our failed criminal justice system.
I’ve had a number of journalists contact me about doing a story on this. Whether they do or not is up to them. The principles of fair use and editorial comment balanced against respect of copyright should of course be considered.
I have decided to refrain from making any direct comment in addition to that which I have made already in this post and subsequent comment. This will be until such time the police write to me with the responses I seek as set out in my letter of complaint published in this post.
The police complaints procedures states they aim to resolve complaints within 120 days. On receipt of their response to my request or in 120 days time whichever is sooner I will reconsider this position.
In response to a request to remove the picture of the police officer and PCSO above I have agreed to obscure their faces. I’m not an unreasonable person. Shame though about me being paraded up the High Street in handcuffs for all to see.
As a photographer who took part in the demonstration at Scotland Yard in April, can I please urge you to pursue this complaint to the end and whatever you do please please please do not agree to an informal resolution. That keeps the complaint off the police stats and the disciplinary record of the officers abusing their position clear. Ditto for agreeing for the officers to receive ‘words of advice’ – it’s a ‘don’t be a naughty boy’ chat down the pub with nothing entered on the paperwork. Copy your complaint to your MP, local newspaper and IPCC (good on you for sending a copy to Alex Carlile).
I hope you refused to shake their hands!
A few points (but bear in mind I’m not a lawyer, just a photographer who believes in civil liberties) – a standard search does allow them to check your shoes, although the stop and search form claims they didn’t as you to remove any clothing! However just about everything else done to you was illegal. Section 44 allows police the power to search you under the Terrorism Act for items useful for terrorism purposes, but you are under no obligation to provide your personal details. You are obviously ‘detained’ for the purposes of a search, but it’s not something you arrest people under. (However unless it’s a designated area they can’t do Section 44s – it would need to be Section 43 if you were behaving suspiciously)
“Unlawful obstruction” is not an offence under any section of the Terrorism Act. However “causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway” is I believe it’s one of the nine “necessary criteria” for arrest under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and makes all classes of offence “arrestable” if the “necessary criteria” applies. Obviously you weren’t obstructing her by taking a photo from a distance, but it appears she arrested you under SOCPA whilst citing the Terrorism Act?
For the rest of the time you were under arrest you were clearly treated like s***. Interesting that they apologised at the end – something they police never do out of arrogance and due to the fact it would be an admission of wrongdoing. Did they realise they had screwed up? Probably, given that they de-arrested and didn’t drag you off for a DNA sample and fingerprints.
Your ongoing problems: as someone pointed out being arrested has consequences. Not just US Visas, but if you ever want to work with children or vulnerable people or in a security cleared job an arrest is cited as part of your criminal record on an Enhanced CRB check. Being de-arrested might mean that there’s no official marker kept on the PNC about you – but you really need to clarify where you stand on this as it could bite you on the bum years down the line. Section 44 stops can also logged on a central intelligence database – find you if you are on this.
Good luck! And screw them for compensation, becuase it’s the only language they understand.
PS. Your case has made it to The Register, where I found this
That is absolutely awful. I’m sure the police have a lot more things to do than arrest and innocent man taking pictures in Chatham High Street? They have no right to do this. Keep up the good work
@Catkins – thanks for your comment. Just one point to follow up. The information handed to me by the officers at the time specifies:
‘If the search is in public, the police officer can require you to take off only your outer coat, jacket and gloves. If a more thorough search is necessary, an officer of the same sex as you must conduct it out of public view’
I was required to remove my shoes in full public view. Clearly in making this requirement the officer in question failed to follow his own forces written guidelines. Small point but a significent principle.
Definetly sounds like an example of police over-reaction to handcuff and detain in a van rather than discuss. Will retweet in order to spread awareness.
“Sweet Fanny wrote: “The police have one reason, and one reason only, to be intimidated by a camera, and that’s because they are doing something they shouldn’t be. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, isn’t that right?”
Strangely this is the same reason the Home Office gives to us over ID cards.
On the search matter, Alex’s requirement to remove his shoes breaches not just force guidelines but the Police and Criminal Evidence Act’s Code of Conduct, UNLESS the search carried is out under S45(3) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which empowers a CONSTABLE (not a PCSO), conducting a search under S44(1) or S44(2) of the Act to remove footwear or headwear in public. Some matters bothers me about the completion of the search record Alex has posted:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/monaxle/3701885383/
a) It is noted that no clothing was removed – wrong, Alex’s shoes were removed.
b) No details (i.e. evidence of Grounds – Prevention of Terrorism) is provided.
c) There is no mention of arrest – “Arrested as result of search – N, Arrested other – no completed (!)
d) No mention is made of which power of search has been applied.
I provide a link to PACE 1984 Code A Code of Practice fro the exercise by: Police Officers of Statutory Powers of Stop and Search:
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/2008_PACE_Code_A_(final).pdf?view=Binary
Sections 3 and 4 are the relevant areas
Alex
I’ve read your post a second time and it really is a complete fuck up. And most importantly there’s a GREAT BIG FUCKING FUCK OFF LIE in the paperwork which you might have been too upset to notice.
To summarise:
You appear to have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for an offence which is not covered by the Terrorism Act, citing a section of said Act which isn’t relevant. What led to your arrest was your perfectly legal behaviour in taking non-commerical photography in public. Your details were wrongly demanded by private security guards, who when you declined to obey, called in the Plastic Plod, who called in the real police. You accounted for your legal actions, but as was your right, declined to provide your personal details, as you were not under arrest or being reported for a recordable offence. This legal refusal got you arrested, handcuffed and chucked in the van.
During your detention in the van’s caged area two plain clothes officers attempt to pressure you into agreeing that your behaviour in carrying out quite overt photography was suspicious, as was your choice not to reveal your identity. They indicate that the arrest is to ensure that you prove your identity. These officers choose not to reveal their identity.
You are then removed from the van, to a more public area, and thoroughly searched by officers who fail to reveal their identity, and who do not state why they are searching for you. Despite the fact you are apparently under arrest you are not taken to a police station to be searched and processed, but undergo a procedure closer to a normal stop and search (albeit in handcuffs and with shoes removed). You are in fact later provided with a normal stop and search form which states “clothing removed: No” and here’s the really interesting bit “ARRESTED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH: NO”.
Despite the fact nothing is found on you, you are then left handcuffed in full public view for a further period whilst the officer who arrested you for “lawful obstruction” states that she instead acted becuase she found your act of taking a photograph imtimidating. Eventually a police officer who has disappeared to carry out ‘checks’ returns to say he is ’satisfied’, removes the handcuffs, and leaves. You discover from another officer that you should have been ‘dearrested’ but you have not been informed of this. You are then formally dearrested, but the PCSO present warns you that you are only free to continue with your photography as long as you don’t photograph officers.
Have I missed anything?
Please pursue this NOW with the local press – if you wait the 120 days then it’s old news and they won’t be interested. Public embarassment will also speed up the police response. Take it from someone who has followed a lot of similar cases. Oh and complain to the police authority as well as your MP and the IPCC.
Please don’t get too focused on the shoes bit – it’s the entire abuse of police powers and public humiliation which is the problem. Focus on one (minor albeit frustrating) point and you allow them to quibble over what exactly is allowed (shoes off verses feeling around the tops of shoes) and go on an ignore the wider issue.
See the stop and search form from the Association of Police Authorities which is very clear on your rights, and your right not to have to prove your identity under most circumstances.
http://www.apa.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6603FC09-5ACE-4476-8098-414755D403C2/0/StopandSearchLeafletEnglish.pdf
I’ve just finished reading your account; very shocking and I am appalled that this is still happening:(
I have been stopped and searched by the police in London so I understand how embarrassing and distressing that this can be.
Your letter is carefully worded and I really hope that you did not shake the hands that were offered to you.
That’s exactly what I was referring to, Richard. That and every other piece of crappy legislation designed to hoodwink us into thinking all this surveillance is for our benefit. The same “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” argument is being used to erode our rights to go about our daily lives without interference from the state, even in our own homes. Makes me bloody sick.
Alex, who requested the removal of the photo of the police?
I can understand asking to have the faces obscured but total removal is asking a bit much.
@ Catkins – You’re spot on in your analysis. The point about the shoes was made for you. It’s just one small part of the whole episode.
With regards to the press; any journalist wanting to do a story about this can without any further word from me. All the details are already in the public domain. They only need to apply the principles of fair use and editorial comment. Though further comment from me may contribute an element of emotion and and add a personal side to it I’m not interested in that beyond what’s available from the post and everyones comments here. Besides I think very little of the media in any case. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to go running to them now. I will comment more when I get the response from Kent police. There is a process I wish to follow. I get there are other ways to go about this. I don’t want a speedy response. I want a rigorous investigation. I want a robust action plan to address any shortfalls that are identified by the investigation. I want this be used used as a learning exercise for Kent and Medway police. 120 days should be ample time for that to happen. I couldn’t care less about publicity or making the police squirm. In fact I think that would be counter productive. I do want any apology that’s due to be in writing and proportionate compensation to be made that takes into account all relevant factors.
@ John Ford. The request was asking a bit much. That’s why the photo remains. It’s simply a demonstration of my reasonablenes that I blurred their faces. I couldn’t give a damn how uncomfortable it may make the officer feel to have her picture on the internet. She didn’t give a damn about the impact her actions had on me. The difference is I am reasonable. She was not.
what sad times we live in, section 44 is just another excuse to stop people going about their lawful buisness just as the sus law of times past
Everyone else has said all that I want to, better than I can. You have my wholehearted support and sympathy, Alex. We truly have sleep-walked ourselves into a police state.
It is probably too much to hope these ‘officers of the law’ receive the proper sanctions for their outrageous behaviour but I do hope you receive your apology and some kind of recompense, even though you can never be truly compensated for your ordeal.
I’ve had an equally ‘unsettling’ experience ( only saved from being much worse by being ‘vouched for’ by an employee of the building I was innocently photographing – from across a road junction ) and I know how it feels. Every incident of this nature drives a larger wedge in what should be a mutually supportive bond between the citizen and those that we employ to make our lives safer.
It just ain’t good enough.
I suggest you print out a copy of this and carry it with you at all time:
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
The met’s guidelines on dealing with Photographers and S44, If the met see the law as so, why should Kent police see it different?
“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. “
Maybe you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
popurls.com // popular today…
story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
“My reponse to that is it will serve you right when you wake up one day and realise you don’t live in a free country anymore”
You’ve got to be kidding – you already DON’T, and haven’t for a long time. Thank god I’ll never have to visit britain. I was left stranded in Germany by a flight cancellation and offered a rerouting through london and I refused, simply because I can’t support a police state, even if I’d rather get home faster.
and then the server melted down!
Very very annoying to be so treathed by clearly stupid police.
Of course you can see where all this might be heading? That eventually you will need a licence in order to operate a camera. And of course another nice little tax earner towards mps salaries and expenses and second homes.
HA, I find it funny that YOU “REQUIRE” my information to leave a reply on this blog.
Good lord. Absolutely bloody astonishing. And not in a remotely good way. The kind of thing that makes me embarassed to live here. Again.
Chin up though, you are not alone.
….and people think that we`re not living in a Police State. The public will only kick up when it`s too late and they`ve got no rights whatsoever.
[...] use the many covert means to take whichever photography they require, and would unlikely choose a small-town chip shop as their intended target [...]
[...] use the many covert means to take whichever photography they require, and would unlikely choose a small-town chip shop as their intended target … Related Posts:Photography is actually still legal in the UKNew digital camera blogShort [...]
Holy crap! You cannot even take pictures while visiting places anymore without being treated like a criminal.
I have a friend that is a professional photographer. He was detained and questioned by the Disney Police (see: Mickeys Mafia) at Disneyland in Anaheim, California a few months ago. They were suspicious of his activity because he was taking photos. He used, what he refers to as, “the big camera”.
He’s a very accomplished and talented photographer, just like you are. He doesnt bring his camera to Disneyland anymore. It’s rather sad.
As far as I’m concerned if you are allowed to see it with your eyes, taking a photo shouldn’t be a problem.
Maybe Ms. Officer was a man hating bitch or was on her monthly that day.
It turns out that small amounts of power may also corrupt absolutely.
I’m pretty sure that I’ll be leaving Britain off of my travel list until this is sorted.
/..