Just when you Thought it was Safe to go Snapping…
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010City of London Police Prove they Still haven’t got the Memo
Yesterday, I read a piece by Jane Fae Ozimek, which I have summed up here. Jane wrote that on Monday, a professional photographer was looking for a location on London Wall appropriate to a portrait of one of the architects responsible for the City’s changing skyline.
He went to One Aldermanbury Square, where the security guard asserted that the photographer could not take photos of the building. The photographer pointed out that the security guard was wrong. The police were called.
Apparently, four officers arrived, followed by a police van with flashing lights. He was detained, he claims, under Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
This controversial law permits police to stop any individual for the purpose of preventing terrorism. While police officers acting under this section do not require reasonable grounds for a search, they may do so where there are grounds for suspecting the photography is linked to terrorist activity. That said, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has in recent months made it clear that photographers are not fair game for random stop and search.
In a strongly worded statement, Chief Constable Andy Trotter, chairman of ACPO’s media advisory group stated:
“Everyone … has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs … is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place.”
This message appears not to have been passed on to City of London Police. Despite the photographer explaining that he was taking photos as part of his job, the police were not satisfied. Allegedly, he was then restrained forcibly by another officer, while the first officer went through his pockets, removing his camera and mobile phone. The photographer described how the officers were cheered by his discomfiture, both mental and physical.
He claims: “the police officer went through my pannier, flipping through personal notebooks, gingerly peeking in a plastic bag that contained a towel and swimmers, still wet from my earlier swim. He located my wallet, and pulled out my drivers licence with obvious glee.”
At the end of the search, the police departed, having failed to return his mobile phone to him. The Terrorism Act does entitle a PC to seize any item which “he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism”. If the PC genuinely believed the photographer to be carrying the tools of terror on him, it was clearly perverse to leave him free to carry out the rest of his mission, photographing buildings around the City of London.
The writer of this piece, Jane Fae Ozimek, asked the City of London Police to comment on this incident – specifically asking them for their views on the removal of the phone. An official spokeswoman told us:
“A man was spoken to by officers yesterday after police were called by security personnel. He was later searched under terrorism powers.”
What about the phone? No comment.
What about suggestions that the City of London continues to abuse powers long after other forces have stopped? She added:
“We continue to work to make sure the city remains a safe place to work and visit.”
Unless, added Jane, your work includes taking photographs, in which case the safety of neither yourself nor your property can be guaranteed.
You can read the original piece here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/11/police_photographers_terrorism_act/
