As revealed by BJP on 15 December 2008, Hurd was detailed for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped on 10 December under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The photographer had been covering the wedding of a couple from Dale Farm in Essex. Read our full report here.

Now, Hurd with the National Union of Journalists, has filed a complaint, seeking a full apology, and confirmation that the officers involved have received training in relation to the appropriate use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act and the responsibilities set out in the Association of Chief Police Officers Police Media Guidelines.

According to Hurd, police officers, who were aware that a wedding reception was taking place at the hotel in London Docklands and had seen her filming guests as they were leaving, approached her to see 'what she was doing'.

Cooperating, Hurd explained 'to the officers that she had been professionally engaged to cover the wedding and was an accredited photojournalist. She offered her Press Card so that her credentials could be checked by the police, there being in force nationally agreed Guidelines between the Association of Chief Police Officers and media organisations,' reads the complaint.

It continues: 'A second officer, aware of Ms Hurd's status as a journalist and that her footage had been obtained through legitimate journalistic activity, said he wished to view the film. He said she was being stopped under "Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act". Ms Hurd protested that she was clearly a journalist and as the footage was professional they could not interfere. Ms Hurd was then told that she could have been 'doing hostile reconnaissance', although this was entirely at odds with the circumstances confirmed by Ms Hurd and supported by the evidence of the reality of the situation.'

Her camera was then forcibly taken from her by an officer. 'The officer's response was: "We can do anything under the terrorism act".'

The complaint says that a third officer 'took the camera and watched footage with a further officer who was still in the police car, some distance from Ms Hurd. She was fearful that her entire days work could be wiped and was by now feeling intimidated, as she was in a dark car park being questioned in an intimidating way by police officers.'

It adds: 'Ms Hurd was informed that she could not use any footage of the police car or police officers and that if she did there would be "severe penalties", although these were not specified. The officer concluded the matter confirming to Ms Hurd that if she did want to use the footage then she would have to go through the Metropolitan Police press office, as it was "his copyright", and, although the officers were not undercover at that point, they might be at some point in the future.'

Chez Cotton, head of the Police Misconduct Department at London law firm Bindmans LLP, which represents Hurd, says that the 'police appear to have been interested in Ms Hurd only because she was filming and used S44 of the Terrorism Act where suspicion is not necessary to stop and search her, in full knowledge that she was a photojournalist.'

She adds: 'The treatment of Ms Hurd is a stark example of such misuse of S44 and made all the more serious because officers were fully aware of the status of Ms Hurd as an accredited photojournalist professionally engaged at the time of the use of the controversial provision.'