back to article Police, ACPO, public set to clash on filming rights

The seizure of a film claimed as potential evidence of a violent crime may turn out to have serious implications for police, photographers and the public – though it is still too early to tell whether the eventual outcome will be good, bad or indifferent. We reported yesterday how Sussex Police had seized a film, shot during …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. jonathanb Silver badge

    Camera Phones?

    What about people taking pics on their phones, which is how most photos are taken these days?

    Can the phone be seized as evidence, leaving me without my usual means of contact for months while they decide to look at it?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Re: Can the phone be seized

      Of course it bloody can. They can do whatever they want once they're in a uniform, up to and including killing you in front of the world's press, with little fear of any comeback.

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      @jonathanb

      This is the case here in Canada. My interpretation of the laws in the UK state that this would also be true however IANAL so take my thoughts with a spoonfull of salt.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Crazy days

    How can there be no jobs for graduates when bad government legislation is making such fertile ground for lawyers?

    It'll all end in tears.... er no, I mean it'll all end in new Beemers all round

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Surely more legal problems than section 14

    I am not a lawyer myself, but surely there's more problems with this than the section 14 "special procedure material" of the Police and Criminal Evidence act.

    Section 19 itself clearly states a requirement that the material can only be seized in order to "prevent the evidence being concealed, lost or destroyed".

    Furthermore, section 22 on retention of seized material clearly states in subsection 4 : "Nothing may be retained for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above if a photograph or copy would be sufficient for that purpose." So the police are therefore required to make a copy of the tape immediately, and are surely committing the the tort of detinue by holding it. I'm sure that suing the police for detinue would easily compel them to return the tape.

    1. beerandbiscuits

      Not quite

      s1 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977; "Detinue is abolished."

      They could however apply for an order for delivery up of the material, but the police would claim PACE in defence as their entitlement to retain it.

      You are possibly right that the question could be one of the basis of the seizure but also its reaonableness. Is there evidence that the attempted to obtain the details of the cameraman so that the material could be obtained later? If not, what was the basis on which they thought it would be unavailable at a later time?

      There is also a technical argument over s23 and whether a "place" would include the street once the ejusdem generis rule is applied.

      I am not aware that these arguments have been tested though, so the police will undoubtedly argue away to their heart's content unless and until someone goes to court to find out.

  4. The BigYin

    Did the cops try...

    ...asking politely if they could copy the relevant section of the recording?

    Surely that would be good enough?

    1. Mark 65

      @The BigYin

      Of course not. If it hasn't got a hint of jackbooted bully-boy thuggery about it then they're not interested. Seriously, do they employ anyone but playground bullies and power hungry narcissists in the force these days?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Grenade

        They didn't have enough

        so they removed the height restriction allowing those with a stature complex to kick in.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    They are really going out of the way for increased action

    I'm not interested in acting as a citizen journalist as such, cause I'm not that way inclined.. Now though, all this nonsense with the cops not allowing those that are - Im likely to just take a camera and sit outside a police station - snap away and just challenge/document..

    And I'll make it journalistic... a blog about police misbehaviour. need to get legal insurance or willing lawyer to back me up.. any offers?

    Can't be bothered though actually .. recent salary views of positions across channel methinks its time to just upsticks.. so actually need dutch/german/french (can't decide) lang lessons rather than a lawyer... there's less and less reasons to stay here - frequently get the feeling everyone's lost the plot in this c(o)un-try.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Copy

    Surely if the seizure was not malicious they would have simply taken his name and address and asked for a copy? afaik didnt they used to do this in Pre-digital days?

    Seems like a knee-jerk reaction from an iggerant copper.

  7. James Pickett

    Evidence, innit?

    If the police can't tell the difference between happy-slapping and journalism, there's not much hope.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    happy-slapping

    "Taking one interpretation to its extreme to illustrate a point, do we really want to move to a situation where anyone found in the middle of "happy-slapping" a victim can claim their material has journalistic privilege – and refuse to hand their mobile phone over to the police?"

    If the police find someone in the middle of a happy-slapping surely they can arrest the person for assault and bag up their property in the normal way?

    1. nickcloke

      Example clarification

      Hope you don't mind me joining the debate, as I did with Marc Vallee's original posting. I'll do my best to reply to specific points like this and - while still totally respecting people's right to post more general points or personal opinion (good or bad) - I recognise my response to these posts may not be useful or welcomed.

      The example I gave was over-simplified, as you're completely correct that the camera could be seized if the person was arrested for the offence. The principle is exactly the same though, just read that the recording has been made by an onlooker who isn’t involved in the assault (and there are no other grounds for arrest), but they don’t want to volunteer the material as they are friends with the suspect.

      Similarly, I couldn't agree more with the many people here who have stated that police should ask the owner of the material to share it voluntarily as the best course of action. Often this happens, but the argument is whether or not S19 PACE should be available to secure evidence if voluntary sharing doesn't happen.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
        FAIL

        "the argument is [...] to secure evidence if voluntary sharing doesn't happen"

        No it is not. The argument is whether or not the police have the right to bully people out of their rightful property under a flimsy pretext.

        Every time I have heard about UK police taking people's cameras away (and this is far from being a first), it has always been in the same kind of circulmstances, i.e. the cop comes to the camera holder and states a spurious law reference before making a grab for the camera. I have _never_ heard that any cop just asked politely before citing specific law articles.

        As such, Mr. Cloke, you can pussyfoot around the real issue as much as you like, but as long as you do so you are doing nothing more than aiding and abetting unlawful seizure against innocent citizens.

        Some people are quick to draw parallels with certain fascist regimes when faced with such behavior, and I can hardly blame them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Unhappy

          @Pascal Monett - "...nothing more than aiding and abetting unlawful seizure..."

          Would that be yet another example of the "bad cops, and those who protect bad cops" definition of the police today?

  9. Guy Herbert
    Boffin

    ~What of the restriction?

    The s19 power can only be exercised when the officer has reasonable grounds for believing in relation to such the 'evidence', "that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed." Curious that Sussex police, though careful to make use of s23 (and constructing it rather too broadly) to justify themselves as far as "premises" are concerned, seem not to have been interested in justification against the "necessary" criterion. Necessary is quite a strong word.

    Which of concealed, lost, altered or destroyed did the officer believe was going to happen? He had to have some reasonable grounds for believing at least one of them.

    1. nickcloke

      S23 and necessity

      A worrying assumption that seems to have been made by a number of posters is that necessity to seize equates to police belief that the owner of the material will purposefully 'conceal, lose, alter or destroy it'. Perhaps reflecting some people's tendency to read the worst into any situation involving the police?

      We've said from the start that seizure can be used to minimise the potential for it to be inadvertently lost or altered – a reasonable assessment to make given the nature of magnetic or digital storage equipment. It's very easy to accidentally delete a photo or record over an already-used tape – seizure gets the evidence into the chain of custody as early as possible and stops this happening, hopefully in many cases eventually leading to solid evidence in court that’s providence can’t be challenged by a defence team and ends up with a criminal being convicted.

      I totally concur that Section 23 merits further clarification, however it is defined in law as "any place" and makes no reference to this having to be an enclosed structure or private place. There is much debate on this interpretation online, but it has never been deemed incorrect by the courts.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        Re: S23 and necessity

        "Perhaps reflecting some people's tendency to read the worst into any situation involving the police?"

        If the police behaved more like the citizens that Sir Robert Peel promised the country, we would have less cause to think that they are thugs with their own agenda. However, until Sir Robert Peel's Principles of Policing are restored to police training schools, and until Bramshill is abolished, I think that the police and especially ACPO Ltd are on a collision course with the British public. A course that the police and especially ACPO Ltd have set all by themselves.

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Hmmmm...

          I'd like to thank Nick Cloke for adding comments here - it is good of you to take the time. I hope, Nick, that you will take notice of the comments on here and allow your world-view to be challenged.

          You must be able to see that there is serious antipathy towards the police and the heavy-handed tactics used against the general public. There is no longer much trust in the police amongst intelligent people (which most of the commentators on The Register's forums are). This is entirely the fault of the police in general, and ACPO specifically.

          You need to remember that policing in this country has always been done by consent, which means that the police were nothing more than ordinary citizens with a few, strictly constrained powers. There has been a concerted effort by ACPO to make the police a special case who are not constrained by the same laws as everyone else. This means that trust in the police is lost, policing is no longer by consent, and there is no goodwill amongst large sections of the law-abiding public. The worst is always going to be assumed - whether it is in regard of securing evidence, or a man dying on the streets of London. There have been too many fairly clear cover-ups of serious wrong-doing by the police (de Menezes, for instance) that make the police feared, not respected.

          When I see police officers being properly dealt with for behaving in a way that any other citizen in the country would be severely punished for, I will begin to change my opinion of your profession. Until then, you are close to being the enemy.

          1. nickcloke

            Debate

            I certainly have taken notice of the comments here - as I have on Marc Vallee's original blog and those who I've spoken with on Twitter.

            The antipathy and disillusion of some people is clear. I would agree that heavy-handed tactics are damaging to the relationship the police want to build with the public, particularly journalists. And unlawful actions are inexcusable. However there’s a difficult line when the law is used to carry out an action that may be necessary but not appreciated by the other parties involved.

            I've spoken to these points in great detail on Marc's blog and, for the sake of time, would direct anyone there who's interested in this (or any more background on this incident) here, rather than repeating or copying and pasting to The Reg:

            http://www.marcvallee.co.uk/blog/2010/09/police-seize-protesters-film/comment-page-1/

            A few small pointers though. While I accept I'm bound to hold a different world view than many people on here due to my internal exposure to policing, I got into police media relations because I’m interested in policing and helping to solve serious crimes through the media; not a desire to blindly defend when we have made mistakes or become a unthinking, uncaring spin robot. I'd like to think people wouldn't make wild assumptions about my personal integrity or values just because of the job I do.

            To illustrate this point, since I started working at Sussex Police in November 2009 there have been two occasions where officers have obstructed photographers without justification (both explained fully on Marc's blog) and in these cases, my approach was to apologise unreservedly both to the individual and in the resultant media coverage, to give the officers involved strong advice in conjunction with their supervisors and to bolster our media training programme to ensure the rights of people to film in public places is more prominent than it was before I started.

            The reason a different approach has been taken to this incident, is that the circumstances are very different. Looking at PACE and the most recent ACPO clarification, the officer, our legal team and I are confident they were acting within the law. Whether this law or the principles it sets are conducive to positive relations is highly worthy of debate (which is why I've thrown myself into it), but this is a debate to be had at a wide, national level that isn’t specific to Sussex Police; albeit this incident has been a catalyst.

            1. Intractable Potsherd
              Happy

              Once again...

              ... thanks, Nick. I have re-read my post, and realised that they may have sounded overly personal in places. I did not intend that, and apologise.

              You relate two cases in which you have been involved. Whilst I approve of the acceptance of corporate responsibility, in what way was personal responsibility brought home to the officers in question? Have they been subject to the same penalties as I would be if I had "obstructed photographers without justification"? If not, has the disciplinary procedure been invoked for not knowing the laws that they are supposed be upholding? If not, I do not change my opinion that there is one law for ordinary citizens and one for the police.

              There is a distinct problem that you draw attention to - it is necessary under some circumstances to do things in pursuit of the law that may be unpopular. These can often be dealt with at the point of conflict by the officer explaining the situation and, if possible, using alternative means of achieving the same end. However, too many police officers and PCSOs have a "just do as you are told or I'll nick you" attitude. I can certainly see how the officer in the current situation needed to secure evidence, and that the chain of custody needed to be maintained, but surely there was a better, less confrontational, way of doing it - making a copy of the data media in front of the officer, for instance.

              You have a hard job, and I don't envy you. Thanks for bringing the debate out.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I remind people....

    There are such things are wireless sd cards and as most cameras are digital and use them why not carry a small laptop or tiny wireless notebook in a backpack and have it to automatically download and save any pictures taken with your camera/camcorder.

    Let them take your camera you still have the pics in your back.

    With wireless a friend could be carrying the notebook in there backpack and as long as you stay in reasonable distance to each other the files will be sent fine.

    I know this setup is a bit serious for the average photographer but for reporters or people at demonstrations who record police wrong doing it could be invaluable.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I know

    A few of the dodger people round my way and there quite happy wiht the police at the moment, what with them picking on every day citizens and letting the ones that would actually take work to catch all alone.

    I even had a mate tell me yesterday of a bank reposesion he was after that was going cheap, he paid a couple of lads to sit out front and scare anyone off that looked intrested and picked it up at bottom prices to sell it in a few years when the market picks up, i asked him if he was worried about the police getting involved and he just laughed, what coppers going to bother invetigating he said when even after a bloke had his face smashed in with a glass Tuesday night down our local the police didn't even bother to get the CCTV footage from the landlord at the time (they ain't got it anymore as the gentleman on it came back when the police had left and took it).

    Simple answer, the police in this country are a joke. A/C cause i ain't a....

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Sussex Police are Muppets

    They used to be a pretty good bunch of people who worked like professionals and did stuff like solve crimes. Now they're a bunch of tossers, managed by tossers who treat the lot of them like a marketing department, who couldn't solve the 60-second crossword in the Daily Star.

  13. Neil Lewis

    A simple solution for citizen journalists...

    ...is to use IP enabled devices so that the data is transferred instantly to a remote location. No need for it to be stored on the device and hence it's not able to be seized. It could even be stored in a location completely outside the police's jurisdiction, should it be felt necessary to ensure it could never be demanded retrospectively.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The law makers dont know what they are doing

    "whatever is deemed to be the best interpretation".

    Those responsible have created legislation that needs to be interpreted.

    Sack them all, incompetent!

    1. Intractable Potsherd
      WTF?

      @Obviously!

      All statute law needs to be interpreted - no law can cover all circumstances.

  15. ShaggyDoggy

    Laws

    It's about time we had some actual concrete laws in this country.

    Not these wishy-washy need-to-be-interpreted vague excuses at pathetic legislation.

    Then we would all know exactly where we stand.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nick Cloke giving it a bit of "neutral" plod-spin.

    "Taking one interpretation to its extreme to illustrate a point, do we really want to move to a situation where anyone found in the middle of "happy-slapping" a victim can claim their material has journalistic privilege – and refuse to hand their mobile phone over to the police?"

    Yes, we do, and if the plod disagrees they can take out a warrant and get it anyway.

    But whatever happened to a polite request for a copy? Oh, that's right, the plod can't do that.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thanks for the strawman Mr Copper

    "Taking one interpretation to its extreme to illustrate a point, do we really want to move to a situation where anyone found in the middle of "happy-slapping" a victim can claim their material has journalistic privilege – and refuse to hand their mobile phone over to the police?"

    Actually I'd rather hope the police were bright enough to realise that the perpetrator of a criminal act has slightly fewer rights about withholding evidence than that of someone innocently filming a legal demonstration.

    But on the strength of this, I have to wonder.

  18. Catkins
    Linux

    Whoops, out of time sorry!

    So previously the police "agreed that a common assault might have been committed against Williams by the police officer involved, but as six months had elapsed - the police took eight to nine months in all to deal with the matter - no further action could be taken"

    This is the exact same excuse used by the police in the Ian Tomlinson case. It would be interesting to know how many complaints of assault by the police take, ahem, seven months to investigate.

    1. Sam Therapy
      Unhappy

      Re: Whoops, out of time sorry!

      Over the past year I have been attempting to bring several complaints against South Yorkshire Police. Of the 6 listed, only one - the least serious - is being investigated because of the 6 month rule. This, despite the other complaints having full documented evidence of Police wrongdoing.

  19. Mr Anonymous

    Police crimes

    "the police, who continued to claim that they had been entitled to remove his camera, agreed that a common assault might have been committed against Williams by the police officer involved, but as six months had elapsed - the police took eight to nine months in all to deal with the matter - no further action could be taken."

    Another example of Police getting away with _committing crimes_ by delaying investigations, thankfully nobody died this time.

    There needs to be exemption to time limits when the police are being investigated so they cannot keep using this tactic to escape justice or court action against investigators that fail to bring a case forward before a time period elapses.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    ACPO Ltd - the good guys???

    Something is not quite right about this story. Sussex Plod are the bad guys, and ACPO Ltd present themselves as the good guys trying to rein in the miscreants. Hmmm!

    I feel sorry for the photographer involved, but it seems to me that he is a mere pawn in a game. The game is ACPO Ltd defending their very existence. Sussex drew the short straw to do something outrageous, and then to get a public bo*****ing for it. If the Chief Sussex Plod gets a nice sinecure with ACPO Ltd or some other favour in the next 18 months to 2 years, then we will know that my cynicism was valid.

    [Exits left muttering: ACPO Ltd being the good guys? Bring back Brunstrom to traffic ... ]

    1. Andrew the Invertebrate
      Coat

      Shirely some mistake

      Shouldn't that be ACPO plc ?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Pint

        Forgive the pedant in me, but no ...

        Go to www.companieshouse.gov.uk and look up company number 03344583. You will find this text on the page, amongst much else:

        Date of Incorporation: 01/04/1997

        Country of Origin: United Kingdom

        Company Type: PRI/LBG/NSC (Private, Limited by guarantee, no share capital, use of 'Limited' exemption)

        Nature of Business (SIC(03)): 9112 - Professional organisations

        Note that it is a Private company, limited by guarantee. That means that legally it is only answerable to its members, ie the top ranking Plods who use it to get their own way on whatever they fancy. No one else can give it any instructions! How convenient!

  21. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    aaahh...

    So more background info reveals this particular innocent victim of the police state might actually have an axe to grind.

    I'd be interested to see the legal ruling that defines recorded unedited images in a public place as jouranlistic material held in confidence.

    As for the "get a warrant" argument - that's just retarded. The whole point of seizure under PACE is to prevent evidence being destroyed before a warrant could be sought.

    If everyone was honest the police wouldn't need to seize evidence, the public would volunteer it. But they don't, unless it serves their own agenda.

    I mean lets face it, we only have police because the "honest" people wont lift a finger to help those around them. While you're looking up your rights have a look at your responsibilities too - you have the right to arrest people and use reasonable force to do it as well you know.

    But its easier to do nothing and then complain theres never a policeman around when you need one and always one when you don't want them to be.

    1. Dom 1

      Eh?

      I think that you are missing the point.

      Mr Williams may well have an axe to grind. This is the 3rd time he has had his camera/film confiscated. Why? Because he films protests and the Police have delayed the investigation until no prosecution can take place if the Police have acted unlawfully (funny, that).

      Mr Williams was, at no time, ASKED by the Police to view his images for evidence of a crime/criminal act. Instead, his camera/film was just confiscated.

      The excuse of the criminal act being stated an Officer's foot being run over by a wheelchair 8-9 months AFTER the event is nothing short of farcical.

      This debate/situation is not about - as you put it - "honest people not lifting a finger to help the Police". It IS about what the Police can legally do and the way they are behaving towards Photographers - against the advice of their OWN ACPO! The Police's continual draconian attitude towards photographers at legal protests - and, indeed tourists on the street - is potentially illegal and must be addressed.

      1. nickcloke

        Delays?!?

        Where has all the talk of delays come from? No investigations relating to the Sussex seizure have been delayed.

        The tape was seized last Bank Holiday weekend (Monday 30 August), not the 8-9 months you have stated.

        I take on board yours and others comments criticising the action and legislation, but misinformation about delays doesn't help this intelligent debate.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Police....

    talk absolute bollocks and lies as per usual. They want us all to be automations that they can control 100%. Well fuck you coppers and I hope one day the police state that you built in cahoots with Labour Govt comes back and haunts YOU (i.e. you coppers).

  24. Dom 1
    FAIL

    What is the point of

    Andy Trotter?

    With the [obvious] utter contempt the various Police Forces around the country have for his advice on Photographers and their right to take photographs in a public place, why are we bothering to pay his wages?

    The average wage for a Chief Constable is £100k - in these austere times, we would make a nice saving by getting rid of him. Could be spent on something worthwhile - like the homeless (yeah, right!).

    Fail? Because after repeated advice Police Officers still don't (or won't) listen.

  25. Glenn Williams
    Linux

    Witholding evidence

    I'm the person who had his footage taken by the police on this and three other occasions.

    The point by Nick Cloke about someone being reluctant to hand evidence over if it concerns a friend forgets the fact that most people would probably realise what a serious offence tampering with evidence is - I don't know but I would guess it could result in a prison sentence. One would therefore risk quite a consequence if I tampered or destroyed evidence.

    But of course as a protester I am assumed to be criminally inclined so rather than go through proper legal channels(or simply request a look at the film) the film had to be confiscated.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Pascal Monett

    "The argument is whether or not the police have the right to bully people out of their rightful property under a flimsy pretext."

    I will do some role playing here, maybe it will explain things a little for you?

    DefenceBarrister: So Mr. Plod, these photos you acquired, how did you get them?

    Plod: We saw the photographer take them, so we asked if we could have a copy. The gentleman agreed to give us a copy after he had saved off the ones he wanted. So the next day we went round his house and he gave us a memory stick with the photos on.

    DB: So, what you are saying is that for 18 hours you had no control over these photos or inded any insight into what was being done with or to them.

    Plod: Er, well, no.

    DB: so these photos could have been tampered with? Photos supporting my client's defence could have been deleted?

    Plod: Well the photogropher promised he would be nice...

    DB: Might I remind you that you are under oath? What is your answer to teh question?

    Plod: Yes it is possible.

    DB: No further questions your honour.

    That is why they secure evidence immediately - nothing to do with your Wolfie Smith type belief that plod is out to screw you over any way he can.

    "Every time I have heard about UK police taking people's cameras away (and this is far from being a first), it has always been in the same kind of circulmstances, i.e. the cop comes to the camera holder and states a spurious law reference before making a grab for the camera. I have _never_ heard that any cop just asked politely before citing specific law articles."

    Maybe it wouldn't make good news. You can see the Sun headlines now:

    "Man asked to give photos to police investigating crime agrees and hands them over"

    or:

    "Man asked to give photos to police investigating crime says he'd rather not. Police ask again. man still would rather not, if that's all the same with you. Police cite the law and regrettably inform man he is legally obliged to comply. Man whines to press because he's a pussy and thinks his human rights to obstruct a criminal investigation have been breached - boo fucking hoo!!!"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Good reasons are irrelevant

      It doesn't matter what the police want, It only matters what they are allowed to do by law. Even if there are good reasons for the police to want to seize people's property, if they lack the legal power to do so there should be a public outcry when they do.

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? as Juvenal so aptly put it.

This topic is closed for new posts.