Young photojournalist detained for army cadet pics
A photojournalist, Jules Mattsson, was detained under anti-terrorism laws after he took images of an Armed Forces Day parade in Romford's city centre
Author: Olivier Laurent
28 Jun 2010 Tags: Metropolitan policeSection 44Terrorism act 2000Street rights
UPDATE: Jules Mattsson has, once again, been stopped and searched by police officers on 06 July.
On Saturday 26 June, photojournalist Jules Mattsson, who is a minor and was documenting the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford, was questioned and detained by a police officer after taking a photo of young cadets. [Photojournalist Edmond Terakopian met with Mattsson, visit his blog for further details and a photo of the 15-year-old photographer].
According to Mattsson, who spoke to BJP, after taking the photo he was told by a police officer that he would need parental permission for his image. The photographer answered that, legally, he didn't. While he tried to leave the scene to continue shooting, a second officer allegedly grabbed his arm to question him further.
According an audio recording of the incident, the police officer argued, at first, that it was illegal to take photographs of children, before adding that it was illegal to take images of army members, and, finally, of police officers. When asked under what legislation powers he was being stopped, the police officer said that Mattsson presented a threat under anti-terrorism laws. The photographer was pushed down on stairs and detained until the end of the parade and after the intervention of three other photographers.
A spokeswoman, before commenting on the case, questioned, in a conversation with BJP, why Mattsson used an audio recording device, in this case a phone, to record the incident. Asked about it Mattsson says that he started recording only after he was "agressively taken aside by an officer". He also says that it isn't the first time he's been stopped and wanted a record of the incident to prove he wasn't breaching any laws.
The recording can be heard in this YouTube video put together by Mattsson. The photographer was stopped for the fourth image shown in this video.
The spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police Service has now issued a statement to BJP: "It is clearly not the intention of the MPS to prevent people from taking photographs, although, as the public would expect, officers will remain vigilant, particularly in crowded public places. Any allegations or complaints about police treatment of photographers are taken very seriously by the MPS."
She adds: "Anyone who is unhappy with the actions of individual police officers can make a formal complaint, which will be thoroughly investigated. Although at this time we have not received a complaint about this incident and no allegations of crime have been made, we will investigate the circumstances. Our officers do receive guidance around the issue of photography through briefings and internal communications and we continue to drive this work forward."
Mattsson plans on seeking legal advice. However, it isn't the first time photographers and photojournalists have been stopped from taking pictures in public places. BJP, as well as other press organisations such as Amateur Photographer, have led campaigns to highlight the increasing use of anti-terrorism legislation to stop photographers. Read all of our articles here.
While photographers have been clamoring for years that they are being targetted by over-zealous police officers, the issue only received national interest in December last year when a journalist for The Independent was himself stopped for taking a picture of the House of Parliament.
The incident caused a media blitz, with newspapers such as The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and Daily Mail, as well as the BBC publishing articles on the issue of public photography. Under pressure, the Association of Chief Police Officers sent a memo to all police forces around the country informing them that they 'should not be stopping an searching people for taking photos.' The memo continued: 'There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place.'
However, despite reassurances that anti-terrorism powers were not targetting photographers, police officers, since then, have continued to quote the legislation to stop photographer from working in public places. In fact, only a few days following the memo's release, award-winning architectural photographer Grant Smith was detained after taking photos near the Bank of America - Merrill Lynch building.
In January, more than 1000 photographers protested stop-and-search powers in a mass gathering in Trafalgar Square. The protest was soon followed by a statement from the Lord Carlile, the UK's terror watchdog, who called for Section 44 powers to be scrapped - to no avail.
The government was dealt another blow after the European Court of Human Rights found that the anti-terrorism powers were illegal. In its ruling, the court said: "The public nature of the search, with the discomfort of having personal information exposed to public view, might even in certain cases compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment."
It added that it was "struck by the statistical and other evidence showing the extent to which police officers resorted to the powers of stop and search under section 44 of the Act and found that there was a clear risk of arbitrariness in granting such broad discretion to the police officer. There was, furthermore, a risk that such a widely framed power could be misused against demonstrators and protestors in breach of Article 10 and/or 11 of the Convention."
Despite the ruling, the previous government appealed the decision. And while the new government has promised to reform the anti-terrorism legislation, it has yet to do so, arguing that it will wait for the European Court to rule on its appeal.
To stay updated on this case, sign up to our free email newsletter here.
This article was first published on Monday 28 June at 11.30am, updated at 5.30pm with Metropolitan Police statement, and on Tuesday 29 June at 10.30am with further background on previous incidents between photographers and police officers.
Comments
The photographer should refer this to the IPCC,
they a: assaulted him by pushing him down the stairs.
b: pretty much kidnapped him (or at least falsely imprisoned him) and
c: have no idea what the hell they are doing so how on earth could jackbooted thugs like that be in a position to deal with a real terrorist incident, or even a real terrorist.. Let alone the myriad of other delicate things the police get called to investigate..
Use the form here:-
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/complaints/forms/form_complaint.htm
Yes, they just forward it on to the internal investigations team of the force in question but it's come from the IPCC, so there's a much better chance of them reading it and taking it seriously if they are involved..
It really isn't hard to see why this happened. A 15 year old is an easy target for a power mad "officer of the Law" and I use that term very loosely.
What amazes me is that there was more than one involved in this incident! I can't believe none of the officers involved had the common sense to realise they were acting outside their own powers and were displaying their own ignorance of the laws they are paid to uphold. Or were they? More likely the case was that they chose to ignore the wrong they were doing as they thought it would never come to light and anyway who would take the word of a 15 year old youth over theirs? How nice it is to see that it has backfired on them and has been brought to the public's and their senior officer's attention.
How small and insignificant do these officers feel now? Outsmarted by what they thought would be an easy target.
Were there any adult photographers in attendance? Did they also receive the same treatment? I suspect not.
I really hope the lad makes a complaint and sues the Met, it's high time this stopped, and that will only happen if enough people follow things through to the end and make proper complaints and bring it to the attention of the senior officers and the public.
I have been stopped by officers in my area, Gateshead and Newcastle, while covering media events and have to say I have never had any problems, it would seem that the officers in this part of the UK seem to have been educated on the law properly, maybe the Met should think about sending their officers up here for training!
Apart from the obvious anger that I share with you all in reading and listening to this, the thing that strikes me most about the recording is how amazingly self-controlled Jules Mattsson remains throughout this. I think that many of us might struggle to retain such composure. All credit to him for doing so as his calm and reasoned actions and words only help to further put to shame those against whom he is pitted. We have all had enough of this and it is time for disciplinary or even legal action against officers displaying this level or ignorance and mis-use of the law.
I would like to say that this is shocking, disgusting, incredible etc since this is, (surely?) an isolated incident. But as a lot of the comments have pointed out, it unfortunately seems to be quite common nowadays. I am currently pursuing a claim against the police which has, so far, resulted in 1 complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (upheld). Upon receipt of this they are legally obliged to implement a full formal investigation. Months have passed with little being done - why? - according to them they did not realise that they had to do anything! Is this lack of training, ignorance or simply the fact that they don't really care about the communities they are supposed to be protecting (and who also fund their salaries can I just point out)? I would love to be able to say that this is (obviously) an isolated incident but, when coupled with the latest episode of them going round harassing young photographers, it does kind of make you think..
Time to go Trafalgar Square again?
I get the sense that our last protest in January hasn't changed a bloody thing. This coppers are a bloody disgrace to their uniform.
Sue the bastards. It's the only way they will learn. Hit em where it hurts. In the pocket....
Our police are really becoming a laughing stock. The officers involved in this incident do not deserve to wear the uniform or claim to uphold the law. I hope this photographer does get a claim in, it's just a pity the payout won't come from this officers bloated pension pot that I helped fund.
With all the re-runs of Police, Camera, Action and other revenue-raising tv shows you regularly hear the Police officers telling suspects that they are legally allowed to film the stopping, questioning and arrest in public.
So why then do they then turn around and not let members of the public do the same?
mental midgets in size 14 boots
I'm all for hiring the handicap but maybe it's not such a good idea to let the mentally challenged become police officers. If you can not articulate a reasonable understanding of the laws you are supposedly there to enforce you have no right pretending to be a cop. There are reasons for dumbing down the police forces. It is happening in the UK as well as here in the US. They are dumber and more violent. Most importantly they are less likely to be guided by good conscience when their superiors order them to smash heads to protect their masters. After all history shows time and time again that the ruling class can only rule in decadence for so long before the deprived underclass snatches it all away from them. They are just preparing for the inevitable.
Sadly the police seem to be of the opinion that they are there to serve the the Law. They have to realise they are there to serve the public and apply the law only in the interests of the public.
This sort of behaviour wouldn`t be tolerated from any other public employee.
Masters or servants?. We decide not them!!
The last government implemented a police state. I just hope this one will dismantle it as quick as possible. Id just like to commend the victim, he held his ground and showed up the incompetence of the police.
Hi JoJo,
Can't agree more. My international courier has been booked and the plane plane tickets paid for. Roll on sunny SA - only a few months to go!! While not perfect, the police there spend their time chasing real criminals and don't give photographers a second thought. Once upon a time England used to champion our freedoms but now, sadly, they want to control our thoughts. How ironic that many so called third world countries now offer the freedoms that the west surrendered long ago. I'm an ex - police officer (from another country) and we hate having our incompetence and lack of knowledge of the law exposed. That's why the officer changed his reason for "detention" from illegal photography to breach of the peace. You can see/hear it in all the videos and audio recordings of these events online. A police officer asks a photographer what he is doing, the photographer replies saying that he's taking photos, the police officer asks to see identification, you politely decline and then this is where it all goes pear shaped. The law says you DO NOT have to give your details unless you have been detained. The police hate people who know and exercise their rights. So now the policeman is going to "make you pay." The officer absolutely knows that you are not a terrorist but he's going to do all he can to now detain and inconvenience you because you had the audacity to stand upon the law which police somehow think is only their divine right to do. The police are used to being obeyed at all times so when you refuse to give your details or to show them your photos they look for other ways to circumnavigate your right to refuse. That's when they move on quoting you are breaching the peace. Many police officers actually lie about the law (as is evidenced in the recording above) knowing that 99% of the public don't know any better and won't question them. I'm not anti - police but I just don't understand their current conduct in this regard. Unfortuantely many police officers think they ARE the law rather than normal people who are paid to UPHOLD the law.
Sing with me...Leaving on a jet plane - knowing I won't be back again...
PS: JoJo, wanna meet up in Cape Town sometime?
Mr Cameron says he's open to suggestions that will save public money.
How about firing bent coppers, rather than allowing them to retire on "health grounds" with a full pension when they know they've been banged to rights?
What you forget is that the British police, along with many police forces around the world, are target related and they need to meet certain quotas, be they completion rate, arrest rate, recruitment amongst ethnic groups rated, and so on. It's not just the UK police, it's all police everywhere. Many of them are good people, but many of them are there because it's a job, and many of them are there because it's an excuse.
He is neither an adult nor was he authorized by the proper authorities to act in a journalistic manner. He should have been at home, studying!
How often have I watched Road Wars or Police Camera Action and the person being stopped complains about being filmed and the police officer knowingly states that it is a public place and they are legally able to film.
Hypocrisy!
The last two times I went to the UK, I had multiple unpleasant run-ins with police who were clearly making up laws on the spot and was even threatened with being put on a watch list which would keep me banned from entering the country ever again.
One exchange that happened (Trafalgar Square):
"What are you doing here?"
I'm videotaping this fountain."
"The fountain?"
"Yes, this enormous thing directly in front of the lens, do you want to look through the viewfinder?"
"Some people come here to videotape the girls in the square."
"As far as I'm aware that's not illegal but in any case, I'm clearly capturing images of the fountain."
"Well, you'll have to stop and leave, otherwise..."
"?..."
The UK used to be such a friendly and hospitable place but "preventing terrorism" has become an excuse for strong-arming obvious (and clearly benign) targets because it's easy. It gives the illusion of protection while only actually serving to hassle the very public they are supposedly protecting.
Related Articles
BJP Daily
Most Popular Articles
Kodak phases out digital businesses, keeps film alive
Telegraph's picture editor caught in copyright infringement blunder [update]
Guillaume Herbaut on his World Press Photo prize
World Press Photo: What was missing for this year's entries?
Samuel Aranda wins World Press Photo
World Press Photo: Does the winning image reference Michelangelo's Pietà?
Updating your subscription status 
About us
BJP is the world’s longest running photography magazine, established in 1854, and online since 1997. A high-quality monthly printed edition is available as a subscription or from selected newsagents in the UK and around the world.
Jobs
Tutors wanted
Open College of the Arts are looking for new tutors for there highly successful photogrpahy degree programme. These are part time contract roles and tutors work from home.
Digital Retouching Specialist
Stu Williamson Photography looking for an experienced digital retoucher to join its busy studio in Dubai. Experience with portrait retouching a must and you need to be proficient with photoshop.
Junior Sales Team Member
The Flash centre are looking for an enthusiastic Junior to join their London Sales team.
Knowledge of Photography and an understanding of Lighting would be a benefit...
Popular Topics
