Special report: FoI requests show extent of Section 44 use

policeman-450x299-jpg

Photographers in two-thirds of the country are subject to the rule of Section 44, despite Home Office instructions earlier in the year advising police forces against using the powers to prevent or curtail street photography, finds Olivier Laurent

Author: Olivier Laurent

Stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are currently in use in the vast majority of the country, BJP can reveal after it filled a second wave of Freedom of Information requests with the UK's chief constables.

More than 27 police constabularies possess the powers, the results have shown. Aside from Greater London, where the powers are being renewed every 28 days, counties such as Cheshire, Cleveland, Cumbria, Essex, North Wales and Nottinghamshire currently use Section 44 to stop individuals.

These counties [see full list below] have also told BJP that they received the Home Office circular on Photography and Counter-Terrorism Legislation. On 18 August, the Home Office released the circular, stating that terror laws such as Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 76A of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 cannot be used to prevent photographers from taking pictures in public.

At the time of the circular's release, David Hanson, the Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, wrote to the National Union of Journalists with assurances that the document would be 'cascaded down to all officers' to ensure they are made aware that these powers cannot be used to stop anyone from taking photographs.

The circular was sent only to chief constables that had requested the stop-and-search powers.

BJP's FoI requests to all 46 chief constabularies asked if they had received the circular, and if they had communicated the information to their officers. The responses - 27 positives, 15 negatives, and four missing - effectively allow BJP to map where the powers are in use across the country.

Photographers could also use the information if and when their activities are being challenged by police officers quoting the Section 44 powers.

The responses stand in sharp contrast to those received earlier this year when BJP enquired whether the chief constables had requested the exceptional stop-and-search powers. Our survey, published on 09 September, showed that most were unwilling to reveal where the powers were being used, claiming that releasing such information would play into terrorists' hands and could be used to plan attacks.

Cumbria, Essex and Hertfordshire, among others, declined our previous requests, claiming that although there was a public interest in the transparency of policing operations, release of any details regarding the use of S44 could threaten the health and safety of the public and the police force itself. In BJP's second wave of FoI requests, these three counties did not object to releasing of information regarding the Home Office circular, telling us that they had received it, in effect confirming the use of the stop-and-search powers within their borders.

For example, Bedfordshire's information services officer wrote that 'after considering whether releasing the information will affect the good order and functioning of community, government or other public service affairs, I believe it is in the public's interest the information be released'. In September, another officer in Bedfordshire had told BJP that release of the information could 'impede the [investigative] process by alerting a suspect and allowing them greater opportunity to evade.'

BJP's requests have also shown that chief constables who received the circular communicated the information to their officers through the forces' intranet. The City of London Police told BJP that the information 'was included in daily briefings, presentations to all officers and also training input to student officers from the 24 September 2009'.

Despite these reassurances, the City of London Police has been at the centre of recent controversial stops. Earlier this month, seven officers briefly detained architectural photographer Grant Smith after security guards had alerted the police over his 'suspicious activities'. A City of London Police spokesman said the stop was justified because of the photographer's 'hostile behaviour'.

BJP's FoI initiative is part of our ongoing 'Not A Crime' campaign, which aims to raise awareness about the increasing restrictions imposed on professional photographers in the UK and overseas. For more information, visit www.not-a-crime.com.


Forces that have received the Home Office circular

British Transport Police
Cheshire Constabulary
City of London Police
Cleveland Police
Cumbria Constabulary
Devon & Cornwall Constabulary
Durham Constabulary
Dyfed-Powys Police
Essex Police
Gloucestershire Constabulary
Greater Manchester Police
Gwent Police
Hampshire Constabulary
Hertfordshire Constabulary
Kent Police
Lancashire Constabulary
Metropolitan Police Service
Northumbria Police
North Wales Police
Nottinghamshire Police
Police Service of Northern Ireland
Scottish Police
South Yorkshire Police
Suffolk Constabulary
Sussex Police
Thames Valley Police
West Yorkshire Police


Forces that have not received the Home Office circular

Avon & Somerset Constabulary
Bedfordshire Police
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Dorset Police
Humberside Police
Leicestershire Constabulary
Merseyside Police
Norfolk Constabulary
North Yorkshire Police
South Wales Police
Staffordshire Police
Warwickshire Police
West Mercia Constabulary
West Midlands Police
Wiltshire Police


Forces who did not answer our requests

Derbyshire Constabulary
Lincolnshire Police
Northamptonshire Police
Surrey Police

 

  • Comment
  • Print
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn

Comments

There are no comments submitted yet. Do you have any interesting opinion? Then be the first to post a comment.

Updating your subscription status Loading