U.K. Legal Question

[Mick Emmett]

OK, I know this sort of thing has been covered in one form or another many times. BUT! I've just been watching a programme on the TV tonight (I'm sure others on here probably watched the same program and are wondering the same as me), it covered an accident on a motorway when 2 women ran out in to the carriageway and were knocked down. The motorway was closed and traffic began to build up, people at the front of the queue got out of their vehicles (they had been stationary for over an hour at this point) and started to take shots of the incident on their point and shoot's. At no point did they ever go near the incident or impede the emergency services in any way; they all stayed with their vehicles yet a Police Officer went up to them and said that if they didn't stop taking pictures he would confiscate their cameras. I'm sure had I have been there I too would have got out my gear and started shooting, after all the Air Ambulance was there buzzing around and there would have been some good action shots. Neither of the women received fatal injury's so I don't think bad taste really applies here, I know it's not good to annoy the Police but had I have been there would I have had the right to take shots and would I have had the right to refuse to hand over my gear and tell the police they had no right to take it. Does any one know the U.K. law (not speculation or what you think it is) on this point; or is it as always seems to be the case in these matters; a rather grey area with no law definitely covering it.

[steved110]

If you refused, you would have got arrested and your day screwed up. In the end you might be able to make a complaint against the police stick as IMO they were not in the right, but who wants to spend all that time and effort and hassle to prove a point?

I would have perhaps respectfully argued that pictures of the helicopter/ general scene were not illegal, but you'll probably find their biggest concern was making sure the scene wasn't inundated with twits and their camera phones. At the end of the day, I tend to do what I'm asked my members of the emergency services, it makes life easier.

Just goes to show that we are no where near as free as we think.

[steved110]

Oh, you might find this useful. i have a copy printed out and keep it in my gear bag.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide

[Mick Emmett]

"By downloading this guide you accept the fact that neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility at all for any omissions or errors whatsoever. There is a full disclaimer in the guide, this is just a before you download it warning !

Also neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility for any replies given to comments left. If you require full legal advice please consult a lawyer."

This part before you even get to download the guide doesn't fill me with confidence that the guide would stand up in a courtroom.

[jamesb84]

OK, I know this sort of thing has been covered in one form or another many times. BUT! I've just been watching a programme on the TV tonight (I'm sure others on here probably watched the same program and are wondering the same as me), it covered an accident on a motorway when 2 women ran out in to the carriageway and were knocked down. The motorway was closed and traffic began to build up, people at the front of the queue got out of their vehicles (they had been stationary for over an hour at this point) and started to take shots of the incident on their point and shoot's. At no point did they ever go near the incident or impede the emergency services in any way; they all stayed with their vehicles yet a Police Officer went up to them and said that if they didn't stop taking pictures he would confiscate their cameras.

In terms of legal position, that police officer was WRONG. There is no legal reason or right for him to confiscate the cameras. Nor is there any legal position to either ask them to stop, to threaten them with arrest or ask them to stop photographing emergency services at work.

These are the main things i've been told before when photographing news (which I don't do very often).

I'm sure had I have been there I too would have got out my gear and started shooting, after all the Air Ambulance was there buzzing around and there would have been some good action shots. Neither of the women received fatal injury's so I don't think bad taste really applies here, I know it's not good to annoy the Police but had I have been there would I have had the right to take shots and would I have had the right to refuse to hand over my gear and tell the police they had no right to take it. Does any one know the U.K. law (not speculation or what you think it is) on this point; or is it as always seems to be the case in these matters; a rather grey area with no law definitely covering it.

The law as it stands is as above. There is no legal position or right for police/army/security services to ask you to stop photographing anything unless a specific byelaw exists (such places include RAF Northwood, Fylingdales, Greenham Common...but only if you were on MOD property). On public property it is extremely difficult to prevent photography of any kind, the only potential downfall for you on this is if you are blocking a highway, obstructing a police officer etc.

If you are threatened with arrest, then rather than argue or resist, simply insist to be taken to the nearest police station and charged. When you get there, the desk sergeant will have to tell you what you'll be charged with...and as there are no laws preventing photography (unless you've done any of the exceptions above) you will have to be released without charge.

This has happened to me twice, once when I was accused of obstructing a police officer during a violent protest in Trafalgar Square (photographic evidence from another photographer shows nothing of the sort as I am at least 5metres away and simply photographing the police beating up a young anarchist) and the second time I was held under SOCPA, taken to Paddington Green during a Stop the War protest in Parliament Square despite having an official UK Press Card, and there being no "ban on photography" in place at all.

Bottom line is...unless you are on private property (or even touching private property) there are no legal restrictions on photography in the UK. Any police officer that tells you otherwise, threatens you with confiscating your camera or asking you to delete your pictures IS WRONG.

There is an expectation of "moral decency" but this is NOT the law.

James.

[jamesb84]

As a follow-up...the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), British Press Photographers Association (BPPA), National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIJ) wrote up a set of guidelines for this... http://www.epuk.org/Resources/819/acpo-police-media-guidelines

They make for good reading, but they are intended for professionals, I'm not sure how well they'd stand up to scrutiny for members of the public. Plus, you'd get no support from the pros if you turn up and start snapping away with a view to sending to local papers for free. Take away work from the pros and you will get no help or sympathy if you get arrested.

That's why we have the UK Press Card, to identify ourselves as doing a job, just the same as the police.

James.

[Gary_Evans]

Legally the woodentop was wrong, he has no right to confiscate your camera/film/ask that you delete images.

Morally ....................... Have you ever been in an accident and then photographed? I have - and if I could have got to the guy doing it I would have shoved his camera up his arse.

Sometimes there is more to consider than "I'm within my rights"

[jamesb84]

Legally the woodentop was wrong, he has no right to confiscate your camera/film/ask that you delete images.

Morally ....................... Have you ever been in an accident and then photographed? I have - and if I could have got to the guy doing it I would have shoved his camera up his arse.

Sometimes there is more to consider than "I'm within my rights"

Of course, if you were a press/editorial photographer, no agency or newspaper will use photos like that, there are quite a few moral and ethical implications! In anything that appears in the press, the photos are usually from after any persons involved have gone and all thats left is cars etc.

It's a judgement call for the photographer, if you want to be seen as "gutterpress" "paparazzi" or any number of other things i've been called then by all means snap away, you have the "legal right" to do so. But as Gary says, if it were you in that position, you'd want to insert lens and bodies into orifices only a customs official would delve into.

James.

[steved110]

"By downloading this guide you accept the fact that neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility at all for any omissions or errors whatsoever. There is a full disclaimer in the guide, this is just a before you download it warning !

Also neither Linda Macpherson or myself accept any responsibility for any replies given to comments left. If you require full legal advice please consult a lawyer."

This part before you even get to download the guide doesn't fill me with confidence that the guide would stand up in a courtroom.

This is a standard disclaimer any professional would give when dispensing generic advice about a general area, without being aware of specific needs, in a situation where someone might take information out of context and be under the impression they were doing something the professional had 'advised'.

The disclaimer is to protect the professional against the ignorant and the malicious and the careless. that's all.

[anonyymi]

People in the UK have no respect for the feelings of others these days (and I'm not criticising the PC here). I'm sure those taking pics were just wanting some blood and guts to show to their friends. Or maybe to get their £250 from "You've been framed".

Re the PC, wouldn't it have just been easier for him to ask people to get back into their cars?

[Mick Emmett]

Thanks for the replies, all very helpful.

[Box Brownie]

Setting aside the moral implications of the specific situation the OP describes. What I find most concerning is the current lack of accurate & correct application of "the law" by our law officers.

I agree with Steve that we should take notice (obey???) the lawfull instructions of said officers but as noted such commands are not lawfull and we take them to avoid confrontation ~ this has the potential to be a creeping erosion of civil liberties/rights. Just maybe a little like the right of 'adverse possession' , look that one up! Or put more simply "don't use it, then you lose it".

Yes, commonsense and moral thinking must & should prevail but there is still the one off image making opportunity that will infringe neither 'sensibility' that could be thwarted by the ignorance of such a police officer.

[jamesb84]

Setting aside the moral implications of the specific situation the OP describes. What I find most concerning is the current lack of accurate & correct application of "the law" by our law officers.

I agree with Steve that we should take notice (obey???) the lawfull instructions of said officers but as noted such commands are not lawfull and we take them to avoid confrontation ~ this has the potential to be a creeping erosion of civil liberties/rights. Just maybe a little like the right of 'adverse possession' , look that one up! Or put more simply "don't use it, then you lose it".

Yes, commonsense and moral thinking must & should prevail but there is still the one off image making opportunity that will infringe neither 'sensibility' that could be thwarted by the ignorance of such a police officer.

Happens all the time I'm afraid, twice held without charge and both times asked to delete images, no idea what a UK Press Card is, what it looks like. Attitude problem, assumption of misdeeds, assualt, criminal damage, in some cases GBH...all in a days work for the police officer dealing with a photographer. Just be thankful he didn't get out a baton and beat you back. It has happened to friends of mine, and very nearly to myself. The UK at times has a press freedom record similar to China. Those people who expressed outrage at the Chinese authorities detaining ITV journalists during the Olympics should follow the press togs for one day and see how much it already parallels the Chinese.

Sorry for the Sunday morning rant, but it is damaging the profession and it is affecting peoples enjoyment of a hobby. How many people here have been given a dodgy look for photographing youth sport or just your children in the park, or just anything in a public place...you have a dSLR and you're either "paparazzi scum" or a pervert.

Done now. :o

James.

[poah]

police officers were wrong, there is nothing to stop these people taking photographs so long as they did not interfere with the police operations. why people would want to take pictures of this unless they were jurnos is beyond me though


OK, I know this sort of thing has been covered in one form or another many times. BUT! I've just been watching a programme on the TV tonight (I'm sure others on here probably watched the same program and are wondering the same as me), it covered an accident on a motorway when 2 women ran out in to the carriageway and were knocked down. The motorway was closed and traffic began to build up, people at the front of the queue got out of their vehicles (they had been stationary for over an hour at this point) and started to take shots of the incident on their point and shoot's. At no point did they ever go near the incident or impede the emergency services in any way; they all stayed with their vehicles yet a Police Officer went up to them and said that if they didn't stop taking pictures he would confiscate their cameras. I'm sure had I have been there I too would have got out my gear and started shooting, after all the Air Ambulance was there buzzing around and there would have been some good action shots. Neither of the women received fatal injury's so I don't think bad taste really applies here, I know it's not good to annoy the Police but had I have been there would I have had the right to take shots and would I have had the right to refuse to hand over my gear and tell the police they had no right to take it. Does any one know the U.K. law (not speculation or what you think it is) on this point; or is it as always seems to be the case in these matters; a rather grey area with no law definitely covering it.

[neil_r]

People in the UK have no respect for the feelings of others these days

That is about as useful and as accurate as me saying that people from (insert wherever you are from here) state inaccurate over generalisations as fact. When in fact, that only applies to you :-)

[bildeb0rg]

I had a chat with 3 serving officers about this over the weekend, and basicly it's a judgement call.
If an officer thinks that you are, or may be, obstructing him or anyone else at the scene, then you will be shooed away. That includes leaping around, flashing away at anything that moves (or doesn't) and generally being a dick.
This will take the form of a polite "put the camera down, mate" or a full on arm bar, cuffs on, knee in the back of the neck arrest. It depends entirely on your attitude/response to the officer.
As for wrongful arrest, "we'll sort that out later", and best of luck making it stick.
It WILL spoil your day, but then if you get your jollies by ghouling around accident scenes, you'll probably enjoy it.

[Mick Emmett]

I was looking at another story when I came across this footage, the very incident I started this post with.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7636577.stm

[Hark Photography]

I saw the programme the OP refers to and had exactly the same thoughts.

I am all against the police, or any one else for that matter, trying to prevent the legal and rightful taking of pictures of any incident.

However in this case I have to disagree with just about all the poster on here.

The police were right and wrong. the women in question had been stopped for walking or being a pedestrian on the motorway. I believe and arrestable offence. in the cause of their initial detention they fled the police and ran across the carriagway resulting in being hit by vehicles.

all of the photgraphers shown in the footage and spoken to by the police had also got onto the motorway carriagway and were breaking the law while taking pictures. IMO they could have been arrested for this offence had they refused to move.

there are no issues over whether this kind of scene is photographable, clearly it is, however the togs got themselves into a lawbreaking position to take the images.

The police would have had no reason to confiscate cameras or files as taking the pictures was not breaking any law. but they could have arrested every one of the togs without recourse. the police were heavy handed in just threatening them to get them back in their cars for safety.

[IMARLOW]

I agree with the previous posters comments about the public being in the carriageway.
Because of the nature of this incident there was a possibilty that vehicles could still be working thier way through the traffic to the scene, the hard shoulder is not always an option so there was a danger for those stood in the carriageway. Albeit small.
Technically yes they were arrestable but under the circumstances and is often seen not likely and highly improbable due to the logistics fo dealign with so many people.
However exactly why the Police Officer chose to adopt a pretty confrontational stance is baffling.
There was a Highways Agency Traffic Officer with a group of people who were lined up across the carriageway in front of parked vehicles.
There did not appear in the footage i viewed to be anyone trying to get closer or argue with the HATO.
The Police intervention was in my humble opinion heavy handed and maybe a little unreasonable.
I cant really see the arguements about the actions of photogs and the photographing of accidents, when in this case there was a camera crew capturing the whole thing on tape the vast majority of which was aired on national tv.
And i would guess they probably had a far greater viewpoint than the camera phone toting togs.

[Hark Photography]

Imarlow ..... thats the first time I have had anyone agreeing with me .... ever .... whats left for me now?

[Mike-DT6]

I have just noticed this thread by chance. I too saw the programme and also thought immediately that the police officer can't say that! But that's not all he said!

He also said something else, and I don't think I noticed anyone else mention it in this thread, and that is (words to the effect of) the people crowding round were in a position to be obstructing him from carrying out his duty - obviously according to his views on the whole situation, which I'm sure were different from those of us watching the programme.

I think that unreported statement changes everything. It goes from portraying him as an apparently heavy-handed, ill-informed policeman who isn't aware of the law to a policeman who knows exactly what he is doing, why he is doing it and the level of his jurisdiction in the matter.

Mike

:-)

[RobNYC]

I was going to suggest the same thing... that being out of your car on a highway is illegal and that would be enough by itself. And no, a cop can't just confiscate your camera etc., BUT if you get arrested they DO have to take away your personal property and invoice it etc while you are in custody. So in reality, they will take away your camera IF you get arrested... you can't take it with you to court! :) Then when you get out, you have to go back and get it... quite a mess!

[Mick Emmett]

I have just noticed this thread by chance. I too saw the programme and also thought immediately that the police officer can't say that! But that's not all he said!

He also said something else, and I don't think I noticed anyone else mention it in this thread, and that is (words to the effect of) the people crowding round were in a position to be obstructing him from carrying out his duty - obviously according to his views on the whole situation, which I'm sure were different from those of us watching the programme.

I think that unreported statement changes everything. It goes from portraying him as an apparently heavy-handed, ill-informed policeman who isn't aware of the law to a policeman who knows exactly what he is doing, why he is doing it and the level of his jurisdiction in the matter.

Mike

:-)
I have to say that I never heard him say that, I was probably still trying to digest his "I'll confiscate your cameras statement" when he said that.

[Mike-DT6]

He definitely said it, but I can't remember the exact wording. Maybe someone who reads this thread has it on video and can check back to quote him verbatim.

Mike

:-)

[anonyymi]

OK, neil_r, as a resident of North Oxfordshire, from my personal experience, I find that ....

"People in the UK have no respect for the feelings of others these days"

Have you anything to add other than criticism of my posting?

[neilwood32]

My thoughts, having just stumbled on this thread, is that, although the PC in question did act in a heavyhanded manner, he did so in a way to try to get people to return to their cars and into relative safety.

Yes, he had no right to confiscate cameras but by that threat he succeeded in getting the people returning to their vehicles probably more effectively than by warning them about their safety or by suggesting arrest for walking on the carriageway.

Had he not got them to return to their vehicles and one of them was hit by an emergency vehicle, he would have been critiscised and possibly disciplined for it.

Sometimes, police officers have to use initiative to obtain the desired results

[TeeJay]

OK, having just watched the program in question, the actual words spoken were (and I quote)....

Male officer: "...if I catch you taking a photograph I'll seize the camera off you"

His explanantion: "It's not something we want the public to be doing, it often inhibits our dealing with an incident because people encroach on us working"

Female office then shouted: "Can you go back to your vehicles please so we can get moving and you can get gone"

Other than the first male officer maybe making an inacurate statement, I didn't feel any heavy-handedness on the part of the police officers concerned.

They had however just dealt with an incredible incident of two people, having been badly injured, then fighting the very officers that were trying to help them.

TJ

[Edit: Just a thought, as the words spoken by the male officer were in fact played over the top of the film, we don't actualy know at what point they were spoken.]

[Mike-DT6]

His expanantion: "It's not something we want the public to be doing, it often inhibits our dealing with an incident because people encroach on us working"



That's the bit I was referring to.

Mike

:-)

[TeeJay]

Mike, the "public" certainly didn't look to be encroaching, but, I think it was simply said as a "frightener" to get the lines of people back to their vehicles.

I doubt very much he would know what to do with about 20 cameras (unless he's got a store on Ebay! :-)) or whether he would want the hassle of all that paperwork!

TJ

[Mike-DT6]

As I suggested earlier, according to his views on the whole situation I believe what he said was correct under the circumstances.

Yes, I agree that it was a bit of a frightener, but he clearly knew where he stood regarding his threats, which was indicated by his comment.

"Inhibits our dealing with an incident" = Obstruction from carrying out his duty. That's the part that in my opinion justified his threat, which would come across as ill-considered but for that additional statement.

Mike

:-)