Freeman Demanding Common Law Jury trial (rough edit)

It is not illegal to take photographs or video footage in public places unless it is for criminal or terrorist purposes.

There will be places where you have access as a member of the public, but will have to ask permission or may be prevented altogether. These could include stately homes, museums, churches, shopping malls, railway stations and council / government buildings. You need to check the situation out on a case by case basis.

The taking of photographs of an individual without their consent is a civil matter. Taking a photo of a person where they can expect privacy (inside their home or garden) is likely to be a breach of privacy laws. The other issue to consider is what you plan to do with the photograph afterwards. If the picture is of an individual, perhaps as a portrait or character study, and you intend to publish it in any way (on the internet, in a book or at a gallery), it would be appropriate and may avoid unnecessary complications if you ask that person for permission, many media organisations are international and will not accept an identifiable photograph of a person without a signed release. If the photo could be seen as defamatory in some way then you would leave yourself open to civil proceedings.

The country is in a heightened state of alert (and will be for many years) because of potential terrorist attacks. So called 'soft targets' are particularly vulnerable. Security staff, the general public and police are much more aware of anyone taking photographs and you may be approached by someone, such as the police, when you are taking photographs near or in potential targets. Generally the police cannot seize the camera or memory card unless you are committing an offence or suspected of terrorist activity.

Finally, it is a specific offence to elicit information (which would include photographs) about members of armed forces, police officers or the intelligence services, which is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates information of that kind. The law does not state that the person who gets the information has to use the information for terrorism purposes, just that the information is likely to be useful to a terrorist.There is a defence of 'reasonable excuse' for this offence, but it would be for the suspect / defendant to raise this matter.

Photographers need to be aware of this provision and be cautious when taking such photographs. The sort of occasion when it could cause a problem may be, for example, at an anti-war protest, when there may be a number of counter terrorism and intelligence operatives working in the area. If an officer makes an arrest for this offence it could cause a lot of unnecessary time wasted for both the officer and yourself, albeit that may only be until the facts are clarified.

Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Communication Advisory Group

Andrew Trotter OBE QPM BSc (Hons), Chief Constable Chair of ACPO Media Advisory Group British Transport Police, 25 Camden Road, London NW1 9LN T: 0207 830 8810  F: 0207 383 3023 email:andrew.trotter@btp.pnn.police.uk

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is an independent, professionally led strategic body.  In the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  In times of national need ACPO, on behalf of all chief officers, coordinates the strategic policing response. ACPO is registered as a private company limited by guarantee in England & Wales – registered address: 10 Victoria Street, SW1H 0NN. Company Number 3344583.

26 August 2010 

Dear Colleagues

Guidance for Photographers

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the ACPO Communications Advisory Group which sits in the Presidential Business Area.

There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO guidance is as follows:

• There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so. • We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals. • We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever. • Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service. • Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.

If you require further guidance please refer to the ACPO website or contact my Staff Officer Robin Edwards at robin.edwards@btp.pnn.police.uk.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Trotter Chief Constable Chair of ACPO Communication Advisory Group

Photography advice We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the importance not only of protecting the public from terrorism but also promoting the freedom of the public and the media to take and publish photographs. Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Met’s guidance around photography in public places.
Freedom to photograph and film 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.
Terrorism Act 2000
Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists. Police officers continue to have the power to stop and search anyone who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act.
Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 Officers have the power to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist. Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence. Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.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 where the information is, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Any officer making an arrest for an offence under Section 58A must be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that the information was, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. It would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests because there would not normally be

United Kingdom
Legal restrictions on photography

In the United Kingdom there are no laws forbidding photography of private property from a public place.[1] Photography on private land is not restricted if the landowner has given permission.[citation needed] However, landowners are permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, including forbidding or restricting photography.[citation needed] Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[2] or the Squares' Management Team and paying a fee,[3] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[4] Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[5] It is contempt of court, a criminal offence, to take a photograph in any court of law of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building or the precincts of the court.[6] Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence.[7]  [8] The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow "picture papers".[9] Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making or possessing pornography of children under 18, or what looks like pornography of under-18s. There is no law prohibiting photographing children in public spaces. It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse; however, the burden of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO in 2009 cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing him. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.[10] However, in January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. Following a prolonged campaign, including a series of demonstrations by photographers dealt with by police officers and PCSOs, the Metropolitan Police was forced to issue updated legal advice which confirms that "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" and that "The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists."[11] It is an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s. 58(a) offence) covers only a photograph as described in s. 2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the
surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.[12]
Photography and privacy A right to privacy came into existence in UK law as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[28]  [29]  [30]  [31] [32] Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy.[33] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.[30] A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner,[34] irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph,[34] of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public,[35] the work exhibited in public[36] or the work communicated to the public.[37] However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast.[38]