Home Office reaffirms street photography rights

Street Photography Rights

The Home Secretary has gone on the record as saying that the Government has no plans to introduce any requirement for photographers to carry identification, as the Home Office continues its review of anti-terrorism powers

Author: Olivier Laurent

In a letter sent to Francis Maude MP, in response to issues raised by photographer Mark Singleton, Theresa May says that as the Home Office continues to review police's anti-terrorism powers in relation to photography, it expects that the introduction of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill will help reduce the number of cases of police's misuse of such powers.

She writes: "The bill will include proposals to introduce Police and Crime Commissioners. This will be the key to ensuring that greater accountability is at the heart of policing in England and Wales [...] The public will be able to elect - for the first time - an individual who will provide a visible and accountable link to police priorities and activities." She adds that the reform will free the police from the bureaucracy and central guidance generated by Whitehall, the Association of Chief Police Officers and that of other organisations.

However, she says, the ACPO will continue to play an important role in the issuing of guidance, and she expects the "ACPO to show strong leadership in promoting and supporting the greater use of professional judgement by police officers and staff."

May also addressed Singleton's concerns regarding the requirement, by certain police forces across the UK, for photographers to carry identification, as it is the case in the City of London. But, as the Home Secretary refuses to be drawn into the legality of such a move - arguing that the requirement is "an operational matter" and, as such, is "the responsibility of the Chief Officer of the force concerned," - she argues that the Government "has no plans to introduce any requirement for photographers to carry identification. Let me assure you that people have the right to take photographs in public places for legitimate reasons and the Government will do everything it can to uphold that right."

May's letter was published by SceneThat, an organisation that campaigns for photographers' rights. A copy of the letter can be seen here [PDF link].

Last week, media law specialist Rupert Grey, who is a partner at the legal firm Swan Turton, addressed the current legal situation, less than six months after Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was declared illegal and scrapped by the current government. While photographers can no longer be stopped under Section 44, they still have deal with three other issues, Grey argued - Section 43 of The Terrorism Act, charges of harassment and charges of making or retaining indecent images of children.

Speaking at The Social, an event organised by the British Journal of Photography with The Photographers' Gallery, Grey explained that under Section 43, a police officer may stop and search a photographer, if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she is a terrorist or has in their possession anything that suggests they might be.

But, he added, police officers have no right to demand to see photographers’ images, or to delete images without getting a court order. If the photographer is a professional photojournalist, they are entitled to protect their sources – and that includes photographs – by refusing to show the shot, a point Grey regarded as “very important”.

However, Grey urged photographers to take a constructive approach both to shooting in the street and dealing with members of the public and the police force. “If a police officer stops you, bear in mind that they have to consider the worst possible scenario,” he said. “If they make the wrong decision, they face the possibility there could be a terrorist attack that was their fault. Ask them why they have stopped you – at least then you know where they’re coming from.”

He added that in his conversations with the Met and ACPO he detected a willingness to co-operate with photographers, and a recognition of their role as the ears and eyes of the public. New guidelines – following the suspension of section 44 – will be published by the Home Officer and the ACPO shortly, and Grey recommended that photographers should read them and have a copy in their photographic bag at all times.

  • Comment
  • Print
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn

Comments

Is anyone listening though thats the point

I was out just two nights ago taking shots of the annual fireworks outside my own home within a short time I was approached by a PC accompanied by a CSPO and literally grilled for 20 minutes had the threat of media card and camera being confiscated when I asked what I was doing wrong or what law I was breaking it was suggested that I go home and take my pitures the officer seemed bemused how you could take photos in the dark,After I asked if this was anything to do with terrorism he stated no,so what was his reason for all this I was then accused of pointing the camera at a house ,its windows curtains drawn and it was stated that a possible charge of voyerism could follow if I didnt do as I was told.
This was a case of sheer harrassment nothing more nothing less,I did nothng to provoke nor anger this bully in a uniform who in my opinion just abused his powers to really just act in such a disgusting manner he is a disgrace to the job and up until the other night was very sceptical of stories about Police and photograohers......no more now I believe them and after such an encounter am thinking of just giving it up.no hobby,pastime is worth this experience I would not wish this on anyone.
Am I a mouthy young man with fire in his belly and a cause to support....No I am nearly 60 and mainly take shots of bird and wildlife....I certainly met some wildlife on the 5th of November and dont wish a rerun of this.

Aggressive,rude arrogant and threatening suggestions that the camer and the gear looked "expensive" in a tone which suggested they may be stolen....He treated me like dirt and didnt speak ,he dictated and that is the way it is
I have reported this officer and his collegue ......I wont hold my breath though .
He has to be held to account otherwise whats the point of it all for god sake its a camera not a gun

Posted by: David Morgan on 07 Nov 2010 at 15:56

A learning curve

I sincerely hope that David Morgan maintains pressure on the police with his complaint. This nearly-60-year-old David has learned through bitter experience that WE HAVE to face down these bullies. The crucial question to ask (and one that they do not like to answer because they cannot) is: "what offence am I suspected of committing to warrant police involvement?" As for voyeurism, see Sexual Offences Act 2003 ss67 & 68. Section 68 gives a clear, legal definition of voyeurism. The Oxford English dictionary 3rd edtn 2008 defines it as: 'a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or taking part in sexual activity." So, PC PLOD! How can Mr M achieve this when the curtains are closed? Best of luck David, PLEASE! do not let this put you off your camera. It is a learning curve for all of us and one day it will be stamped out. David.

Posted by: MURRAY on 12 Nov 2010 at 20:59

Updating your subscription status Loading