All quiet on the Westminster front
The Home Office has refused to release data on the use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 against photographers. The news comes as BJP, as part of its campaign to protect photographers' rights, files more than 46 new Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover where photography can be challenged in England and Wales. Olivier Laurent reports
Image (c) Marina Scukina/BJP
The Home Office has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the BJP regarding the disclosure of the list of all areas where police officers are authorised to stop-and-search photographers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The controversial Act of Parliament, put into force in 2001, allows Chief Constables to request authorisation from the Home Secretary to define an area in which any constable in uniform is able to stop and search any person or vehicle for the prevention of acts of terrorism. The authorisation, which can be given orally, must be renewed every 28 days and only covers the areas specified in the Chief Constables' requests.
While it is common knowledge that the entire City of London, at the behest of the Metropolitan Police, is covered by the legislation, it remains unclear which other areas in England and Wales have requested the stop-and-search powers.
After growing concerns from BJP readers, some of whom say they have been abusively stopped from taking pictures around the country, news editor Olivier Laurent filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office on 24 April. The request asked for a 'full list of all areas - in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - subject to Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 authorisations, which the Home Office has a statutory duty to be aware of.'
The request was rejected in late May on grounds of national security. 'In relation to authorisations for England and Wales, I can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you requested. I am, however, not obliged to disclose it to you,' writes J Fanshaw of the Direct Communications Unit at the Home Office. 'After careful consideration we have decided that this information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 24(1) and Section 31(1)(a-c) of the Freedom of Information Act.'
'Section 24(1) provides that information is exempt if required for the purposes of safeguarding National Security. Section 31(1)(a-c) provides that information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the administration of justice.'
The Home Office continues: 'In considering the public interest factors in favour of disclosure of the information, we gave weight to the general public interest in transparency and openness. This was considered in balance with not disclosing the information due to law enforcement and National Security issues.'
According to the Home Office's Direct Communications Unit, the disclosure of a Section 44 authorisation in a particular area is an operational matter for the police force covering that area. 'The Home Office believes that as Section 44 authorisations are used with up to date intelligence, to make any specific authorisation public could inadvertently release sensitive information. A list of authorisations that are in place could also allow any terrorists to act outside of them.
'It is the decision of the Chief Constable to decide whether or not to disclose the existence of a current authorisation in their area. In order to help maintain public confidence in the use of stop and search, the Metropolitan Police Service does make the existence of any Section 44 authorisation in place public knowledge.'
As part of its ongoing campaign for photographers' rights, BJP has appealed the decision, requesting an internal review of the request's handling. It has also filed 46 additional Freedom of Information Act requests to all Chief Constables in England and Wales, asking them to disclose whether they have asked for stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Home Office's rebuff is the second after a similar refusal from the Metropolitan Police regarding a Freedom of Information Act request filed by UK-based photography magazine Amateur Photographer. Last week, the magazine revealed it had 'sought figures on the number of people stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, specifically relating to photography.'
In a letter to Amateur Photographer, the Metropolitan Police Service rejected the request. 'This is to inform you that it will not be possible to respond to your request within the cost threshold. This would require the MPS to search every search/arrest record to identify cases containing the information you require.'
For continuous coverage on photographers' rights, check bjp-online.com/news.
Photographers protest restrictive photography laws in front of New Scotland Yard, 16 February 2009.
