Here We Go Again?

[Mike Farley]

This looks like someone acting outside of their powers. I thought that this sort of thing had been sorted out a while back, but hopefully is just a one-off incident. I am a bit surprised that at this early stage the photographer involved will be meeting a "barrister" to discuss the incident. It could be that the author of the article does not understand the legal process in the UK.

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/06/uk-pho ... town-hall/

[Iggy]

Hi Mike,
In my view, a poor judgement call from Mitchell.
Instead of being mr. smartie pants, politely answer the questions and tell them your name. Only then perhaps mention the legal right to photograph in public. That way he would have hopefully been allowed to carry on photographing and would not have been detained.
I wouldn't expect every type of police officer to know all the laws.
One cannot be too careful these days.
Iggy

[Mike Farley]

In my view, a poor judgement call from Mitchell.
Instead of being mr. smartie pants, politely answer the questions and tell them your name. Only then perhaps mention the legal right to photograph in public. That way he would have hopefully been allowed to carry on photographing and would not have been detained.

Admittedly it does not help that there are two differing versions of events, particularly regarding whether Mitchell did identify himself, but from the information available there are are number of issues raised. Some are specific to this incident, while others are more general in respect of policing by consent in a free society.

• As you point out, photography in a public place is legal. Unless there was something else going on, which is not mentioned in either account, Eddie Mitchell should have been left alone to continue his activities.
• Mitchell was not approached initially by a police officer, but by a civilian who works for the police. I would expect police officers to have had training in how to deal with such situations, which is unlikely to be the case for the civilian. It seems that against specific advice from her employer, the civilian used her police staff identity card to justify her actions. Mitchell complied with her request to accompany her to the police station, which he might not have done if he had been aware of her actual status. While it is unclear what happened, one interpretation is that the civilian impersonated a police officer, itself a serious offence.
• Invoking Section 43 of the Terrorism Act was at best disproportionate and at worst possibly illegal. It can only be used when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person being stopped and searched is a terrorist. Since there is no suggestion that Mitchell was doing anything unlawful, those grounds did not exist. A more likely explanation is that its use related to justifying the actions of the civilian so that the police did not lose face. Instead of an unwarranted escalation, an apology from the police would have resolved the situation.
• The statement by Sussex Chief Constable Giles York is worrying. No one doubts that the police have a challenging role, especially when the threat of terrorism is as high as it is. In this case, though, there is sufficient evidence to question whether the officers involved acted within their authority. On this occasion, maybe they are not the "heroes" which he implies?

I wouldn't expect every type of police officer to know all the laws.

I most defintely would. How can they conduct their duties otherwise?

One cannot be too careful these days.

Just as the introduction of digital imaging revolutionised photography, it also brought about new concerns for those charged with keeping us safe. It no longer required a third party to process film, which acted as a form of check against illegal activity. Some years ago, this led to an increase of suspicion about photographers. There were a few instances of photographers being unlawfully detained, sometimes in police cells or being forcibly wrestled to the ground. Several of those subjected to these measures subsequently received financial compensation. One consequence was the formation of the "I am photographer, not a terrorist" campaign. More recently, cooler heads have prevailed but it does demonstrate that the authorities can sometimes overreact, however well meaning their intentions. We should not take our civil liberties for granted and take appropriate action whenever they are threatened.

[Iggy]

Hi Mike,
That is a timely reminder of our rights as photographers.
Thanks,
Iggy

[Iggy]

Here are couple of useful resources to be aware of when photographing in public places

1405 Bust Card - WordPress.com
https://phnatdotorg.files.wordpress.com ... t_card.pdf

Photographers Rights: the ultimate guide
http://www.techradar.com/how-to/photogr ... de-1320949

Regards,
Iggy