There are two issues that have been the subject of recent media attention regarding photography in public. It may be helpful if I explain the law in this area before commenting on the specific case that you raise about photography around the Olympic Park site in Stratford.

First concerns have been expressed about the stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 44 enables the police to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles exist. This is a useful power but it is also a very wide ranging one and concerns have been raised that the power is being used to stop people taking photographs within authorised areas – whether this is photographs of buildings or people – and that cameras are being confiscated and images deleted as part of such searches.

I would like to be absolutely clear, that section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs. The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) issued revised guidance on the use of section 44 in November last year which made it clear that the power does not stop the taking of photographs in an authorised area and that the police should not prevent people from taking pictures using these powers. The police may, of course, stop and search someone who is taking photographs within an authorised area just as they may stop and search any member of the public but the powers should not be targeted at photographers.

The second issue concerns the new offence at section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. This makes it an offence to elicit, or attempt to elicit, or publish or communicate information about an individual who is, or has been, a constable or a member of the armed forces or intelligences services. The information must be of a kind that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism.

It has been suggested that this new offence could criminalise people taking or publishing photographs of police officers. Whilst a photograph of a police officer may potentially fall within the scope of this offence it might only do so in a very limited set of circumstances. This offence is designed to capture terrorist targeting activity directed at members of the protected groups – which sadly we know does occur. The offence might, therefore, be committed where someone provides a person with information about the names and addresses and details of car registration numbers of persons in the protected groups. The important thing here is that the photographs would have to be of a kind which are likely to provide practical assistance to terrorists – and the person taking or providing the photograph would have to have no reasonable excuse for doing so such as responsible journalism.

Therefore the offence would not – capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers do have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rules or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

The Home Office is in the process of drafting a circular to all police forces on the new offence setting out the policy intentions behind it and making clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. This circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued.

It is worth noting in this context that there are two safeguards built into the statute. First, all prosecutions for the offence must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions and second, it is a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their actions.

You also raise the specific point about taking photographs around the site of the Olympic park construction site at Stratford. On site security is principally a matter for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), the public body responsible for Olympic venue construction. In response to the incident that you describe, ODA issued the following public statement which is quoted in the article which you enclose:

‘Filming and photography of the site from public highways and areas around the Olympic Park is permitted. However our security guard team reserve the right to talk to anyone they believe may be taking photos or footage of any security operations. This is part of the ODA’s responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the Olympic Park.”

As you point out, photographs of the Stratford site are available on the internet, as with many other locations with a high public profile. However, photos of specific security-related features of a site such as the guarding arrangements may be less commonly available, and may be of use to terrorists and criminals. It is therefore reasonable that security staff will challenge people who appear specifically to be trying to photograph such features.

I hope that this is helpful, and if you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Richard Worth

Can I do a brief Q&A with you on my blog? Email you?

The “refusal to give name and address is a reasonable grounds for suspicion” stuff from the Chief Constable is sinister.

I think people should bear in mind the following poem and them consider standing up for photographers, even if they are not one themselves. The same goes for all groups or individuals who suffer discrimination, bullying or oppression.

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then… they came for me… And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
by Martin Niemöller

http://www.apa.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C9F76373-4B54-445D-A0D8-769D845275E1/0/APAFLYERA40605.pdf

to carry out a course of action to cause harrassment ( two or more events will do it) is an offence!

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970040_en_1

It also allows you to opbtain an order to prevent reoccurence and to claim damages as well as making it a criminal offence.