The policing of the G20 protests in London earlier this month has dominated the headlines over the past couple of weeks, with accusations of officers being heavy-handed towards protesters. More than 180 complaints stemming from the protests have been received by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It has launched three investigations into allegations of assault, including one minutes before the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson. Much of the public concern has been based on images of the policing operation including Ian Tomlinson being assaulted and, according to a second autopsy, dying of internal haemorrhaging. The initial Police statement said he had no contact with the Police and died of a heart attack. Public concern has also been fuelled by pictures of officers covering their ID numbers and refusing to allow themselves to be identified, in breach of regulations.
However despite the Police relying on CCTV and extensive videoing of protestors themselves the law in the UK has been changed so you and I could be committing an offence by photographing the Police or even, for instance, Police Officers cars which are habitually illegally parked around New Scotland Yard in Westminster, in areas where you and I would be fined and clamped.
From 16th February 2009 anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence. That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force. It permits the arrest of anyone found "eliciting, publishing or communicating information" relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". That means anyone taking a picture of one of those people could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, if a link to terrorism is proved.
NUJ protest - New Scotland YardThe law has angered photographers, both professional and amateur, who fear it could exacerbate the harassment they already sometimes face and a group gathered outside New Scotland Yard for a "mass picture-taking session" in protest. The event was organised by the National Union of Journalists. It insisted the right to take pictures in public places is "a precious freedom" that must be safeguarded. NUJ organiser John Toner said: "Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events - football matches, carnivals, state processions - so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal."
Despite the usual assurances given by the Home Secretary, Whacky Jacqui Smith, at the time there is already evidence of the law being abused. Consider the case of an Austrian visitor who fell foul of the Plods in Walthamstow, London, where suspicious photography ranks high on policing priorities! Like most visitors to London, Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris took several photographs of some of the city's sights, including the famous red double-decker buses. More unusually perhaps, they also took pictures of the Vauxhall bus station, which Matzka regards as "modern sculpture".
But the tourists have said they had to return home to Vienna without their holiday pictures after two policemen forced them to delete the photographs from their cameras in the name of preventing terrorism. Matzka, a 69-year-old retired television cameraman with a taste for modern architecture, was told that photographing anything to do with transport was "strictly forbidden". The policemen also recorded the pair's details, including passport numbers and hotel addresses.
In a letter to the Guardian, Matzka wrote: "I understand the need for some sensitivity in an era of terrorism, but isn't it naive to think terrorism can be prevented by terrorising tourists?" The Metropolitan police said it was investigating the allegations. In a telephone interview from his home in Vienna, Matzka said: "I've never had these experiences anywhere, never in the world, not even in Communist countries." He described his horror as he and his 15-year-old son were forced to delete all transport-related pictures on their cameras, including images of Vauxhall underground station.
"Google Street View is allowed to show any details of our cities on the World Wide Web," he said. "But a father and his son are not allowed to take pictures of famous London landmarks."
Klaus Matzka and his son Loris The British Journal of Photography recently reported an incident involving a photographer in Cleveland who was stopped by a police officer while taking pictures of ships. He was asked if he was connected to terrorism, which he wasn't, and told his details would be kept on file. A Cleveland police spokeswoman told the journal that "in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent," anyone in "suspicious circumstances" could be asked to explain themselves.
Photojournalist Marc Vallée is among those angry at the law. He specialises in covering protests and fears for the implications of Section 76. "Alarm bells really are ringing," he told the BBC News website. "I know some of it sounds a bit funny. Train spotters being stopped for taking pictures, that sort of thing, but I've spoken to people who've been on their own, at night and they're surrounded by several officers. It can be intimidating.
"It may be that officers are just doing their best with a bad law, but if that's the case, they need guidance to tell them, 'Stop harassing photographers.'" Mr Vallée also pointed out that members of the Royal Family were part of the Armed Forces. "Are we going to be stopped from photographing them?" he said.
The NUJ said some police officers wrongly believed they had the right to delete photographers' images. Other critics, meanwhile, fear the new law could inhibit their right to peaceful, democratic protest. Leo Murray is a spokesman for climate change campaign group Plane Stupid. His members film any direct action they take. "It's outrageous," he told the BBC News website. "It's yet another in a long line of measures designed to erode people's civil liberties. "Being able to film the police has completely changed the way they are able to police our protests. It's made us much, much safer and the risks of a violent confrontation have almost disappeared. If we couldn't film they could act with impunity, they could just mete out violence with the confidence that nobody would find out. There's absolutely no way we are going to observe this ban. If they try to bring charges against us we will fight them in the courts."
The rather wonderful Vauxhall Bus StationIn a statement, Number 10 said that while there were no legal restrictions on taking pictures in public places, "the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations," it said. Photographers could therefore be asked to "move on" for the safety of themselves or others. "Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action should be taken," the statement added.
This discretion, however, is what some feel is the key problem with the law. Critics fear the new law could stop them photographing legitimate protests Neil Turner, vice chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association, said he believed there was no intention among senior ranks of the police to prevent legitimate photography. "The problems that we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations that they find uncomfortable or where they make judgements about photography and don't know how to apply the legislation on the ground," he said.
"We firmly expect that there will be inappropriate uses of the act and that someone will end up in front of a judge before there is some clarity and before the purpose of the act is properly defined." The Metropolitan Police insisted the law was intended to protect counter-terrorism officers and any prosecution would have to be in the public interest. "For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists," it said. "Taking photographs of police officers would not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be caught by this offence."
Austin Mitchell MP 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. Mr Mitchell, himself a keen photographer, was challenged twice, once by a lock-keeper while photographing a barge on the Leeds to Liverpool canal and once on the beach at Cleethorpes. "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. "If a decision is made to crack down on photographers, it should be made at the top. It's a general officiousness and a desire to interfere with people going about their legitimate business."
But in Britain this sort of attitude is new. So what is the law? "If you are a normal person going about your business and you see something you want to take a picture of, then you are fine unless you're taking picture of something inherently private," says Hanna Basha, partner at solicitors Carter-Ruck. "But if it's the London Marathon or something, you're fine." There are also restrictions around some public buildings, like those involved in national defence. And under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may randomly stop someone without reasonable suspicion, providing the area has been designated a likely target for an attack.
Police PosterChild protection has been an issue for years, says Stewart Gibson of the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, but what's happened recently is a rather odd interpretation of privacy and heightened fears about terrorism. "They [police, park wardens, security guards] seem to think you can't take pictures of people in public places. It's reached a point where everyone in the photographic world has become so concerned we're mounting campaigns and trying to publicise this." It seems to be increasing, he says. "There's a great deal of paranoia around but the police are on alert for anything that vaguely resembles terrorism. It's difficult because the more professional a photographer, paradoxically, the more likely they are to be stopped or questioned. "If people were using photos for terrorism purposes they would be using the smallest camera possible."
In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident. Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.
They state that "once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence."
So, if Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris ever return to London there is no restriction on their taking photos in public places or indeed of the Transport System. London Underground freely allows portable photography on its system provided you do not use a flash. Whilst some find this curious, flashes can trigger fits in epileptics, set off automatic fire alarms and interfere with cameras which are used for security and by the drivers opening and closing doors. However policies are not consistent with for instance Glasgow’s Underground forbidding photography on its system but curiously there is no legal basis for them to do so as even the bylaws have not been amended.
So there you have it in the Great Britain of 2009. How smug we used to feel when tourists were arrested for photographing decrepit Soviet barracks in Eastern Europe in the 1980s or English plane spotters were arrested in Greece in 2001. Serves them right for travelling to dodgy countries, we used to say, because it could not happen here in the Land of the Free!
