πΏπ©ππΏπ©ππΏπ©ππΏπ©ππΏπ©ππΏπ©ππΏπ©ππΏπ©ππΏπ©π
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges
(1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she—
(a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and
(b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper.
(2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).
(3)The police constables referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a)a constable of a police force in England and Wales;
(b)a special constable for a police area in England and Wales;
(c)a constable or special constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(d)a constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;
(e)a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;
(f)a National Crime Agency officer designated under section 9 or 10 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as having the powers and privileges of a constable.
(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—
(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—
(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or
(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and
(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).
(6)The first case is where—
(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,
(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and
(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(7)The second case is where—
(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,
(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and
(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(8)An offence is committed under this section if the act or omission in question takes place in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.
(9)In this section—
“benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment, whether or not in money or other property and whether temporary or permanent;
“United Kingdom waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom’s territorial sea.
(10)References in this section to exercising, or not exercising, the powers and privileges of a constable include performing, or not performing, the duties of a constable.
(11)Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office at common law in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
Photographers’ rights
This is a general guide to the main legal restrictions on the right to take photographs and the right to publish photographs that have been taken. It is not a complete or definitive guide on the law. If you are faced with unusual circumstances, specific issues, concerns or difficulties we suggest you seek legal advice.
These links give further information.
Urban 75 Photographers rights - street shooting, people, privacy and children
UK Photographers Rights and Guide by Linda Macpherson (download a PDF of this guidance here)
Editorial Photographers United Kingdom and Ireland (EPUK)
British Photographic Council (BPC)
The British Press Photographers' Association (BPPA)
Wikipedia: Photography and the Law
I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist
Police National Legal Database advice page
UK Law
On the whole, UK law doesn't prevent photography in public places. The UK has relatively liberal laws regarding photography compared with many countries. Although there are some exceptions, the key principle is that you can photograph people and buildings without needing permission, providing you are in a public place.
As long as you're not causing any harassment, you're allowed to photograph other people if they are in a public place.
Public vs. Private
Many of the incidents in which photographers come into difficulty is that many places which you instinctively think are public are in fact privately controlled. This includes some shopping centres, car parks, some parks and play areas (depending on the attitude of the landowner) and various private structures, for example, Millennium Wheel on the South Bank in London. There is a trend for public places to become private, particularly in town centres which are developed with new shopping centres.
In a public place
Taking photos in a public place is not illegal. The only time an offence is committed is if the photographs being taken are considered to be indecent. There is no law stating that you can't take photographs in public. This includes taking photos that include other people's children or taking photos of children directly. An offence will, however, have been committed if the photographs taken are indecent.
"Public Place" is not defined in legislation. A public place is usually a place to which the public are allowed to have access freely and without payment or permission. This includes any public highway or footpath. The inside of a car is also considered as a public place, unless it is parked on private property.
You may take photographs of people or objects (including buildings) whilst in a public place. With a few exceptions the owners of the property cannot prevent you from doing so and people cannot generally object to having their photographs taken.
In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material.
However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important.
On Private Property
If the person you're photographing is on private land, they could claim a right to privacy, and if you're on private land, then the owner of the land has the right to restrict photography on their property.
How you choose to use the photos later may well be restricted by whether you have a model release or property release, but this is a different matter.
If you are asked to stop taking photographs on private property then it is advisable to do so. The person asking might not have the legal right to do so but it is likely that the actual landowner will side with them rather than you. Additionally you could be accused of trespass.
Property owners or their employees and security staff have no right whatsoever to confiscate, inspect or damage a photographer's camera or insist that images are deleted.
Railways and tube stations generally allow people to take non-commercial photographs as long as you don't cause an obstruction (more likely to happen if you are using a tripod). However asking station staff first is probably a good idea.
Harassment and Invasion of Privacy
It is illegal to harass another person and taking photographs could amount to harassment. This isn't to say that someone could claim they were being harassed just because they were being photographed when they didn't want to be. Harassment is essentially behaviour that causes another person alarm or distress and it refers to a course of conduct, not a single incident. (A "course of conduct" means at least two occasions.) If a photographer stalks a subject in order to get a photograph of them, or repeatedly thrusts a camera in someone’s face, this might be harassment.
The law is not the same throughout the UK. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, harassment is a criminal offence, for which the penalty is up to 6 months in prison, or a fine, or both. A victim of harassment can also bring a legal action for an injunction against the person who is harassing him, and a claim for damages. Breaching the injunction is also a criminal offence. In Scotland, harassment itself is not a criminal offence, but the victim can ask the court for a "non-harassment order" against the person who is harassing them. Breach of the order is a criminal offence.
Invasion of Privacy
Invasion of privacy is a difficult thing to determine in UK law. The UK has never recognised a general right of privacy, but the European Convention on Human Rights gives everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
It is not always easy for a photographer to know whether taking or publishing a photograph might amount to an invasion of privacy.
Taking photographs of a person in a public place would not normally be regarded as an invasion of privacy. The key seems to be whether the place is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So using a telephoto lens to take a photo of someone in a private place, such as their home, without their consent, is probably an invasion of privacy even though the photo is taken from a public place.
The lack of any coherent law of privacy in the UK means that photographers are not only free to take photographs of people in public places, but they can use those photos as they wish, including for commercial gain. In some countries, individuals have rights over the commercial use of their images, hence the importance of obtaining a model release for the use of an image that contains a recognisable person.
UK law does not, at present, recognise this right. But failure to obtain a model release will seriously impair the commercial use of an image because most photo libraries, stock agencies and the like have an international customer base and will not accept an image of a recognisable person without a release.
Data Protection Act
There is also a possibility that photographs of people may be subject to the Data Protection Act, which controls the "processing" of"personal data", that is, data relating to an individual from which the individual can be identified. The definitions of these terms are complex, but taking a photograph of a recognisable person would appear to fit within them. The Act contains an exemption (section 32) which applies where you are "processing" personal data for journalistic or artistic purposes; you are doing so with a view to publication; and it would be incompatible with your journalistic or artistic purposes to be required to comply with the Act (for example, it would be incompatible if you had to put down your camera in order to ask consent of everyone captured in a street scene). Much photography will probably be protected by this exception.
Search this website
Basic searchSearch
Main navigation menu
Report
Tell us about
Apply or register
Request
Feedback
Your area
Breadcrumb
Home
Advice and information
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 grounds for suspecting that the photographs were being taken to provide assistance to a terrorist. An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
There is 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 so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.
Guidelines for Met staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews
There is 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 so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.
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 fulfill their duties without hindering each other.
Creating vantage points
When areas are cordoned off following an incident, creating a vantage point, if possible, where members of the media at the scene can see police activity, can help them do their job without interfering with a police operation. However, media may still report from areas accessible to the general public.
Identifying the media
Genuine members of the media carry identification, for instance the UK Press Card, which they will present on request.
The press and the public
If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.
Access to incident scenes
The Senior Investigating Officer is in charge of granting members of the media access to incident scenes. In the early stages of investigation, evidence gathering and forensic retrieval take priority over media access, but, where appropriate, access should be allowed as soon as is practicable.
