Section 44…
If you are anyway interested in photography then you can’t have failed to notice the recent slew of photographers being questioned by the police.
For example,
Grant Smith, who has 25 years experience documenting buildings by Richard Rogers and Norman Foster, was stopped by a squad of seven officers who pulled up in three cars and a riot van and searched his belongings under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police to stop and search anyone without need for suspicion in a designated area.
“Three of them descended on me and said they were here because of reports of an aggressive male,” Smith said. “One of them even admired my badge which said ‘I am a photographer not a terrorist’. But they searched my bag for terrorist-related paraphernalia and demanded to know who I was and what I was doing. I refused. saying that I didn’t have to tell them, but they said if I didn’t they would take me off and physically search me.”
Smith’s trouble began when he refused to provide his name and explain what he was doing to a security guard from a nearby Bank of America office. He said he was astonished by the police response, not least the expense of dispatching four vehicles and seven officers.
Taken from this article on the Guardian website.
And this excellent video from the Guardian, I know it’s 9 minutes long but it’s worth watching.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/11/photographs-police-anti-terrorism-laws
Now, I do agree that this guy was being a little bit provocative, but even still, special branch?! These incidents and more are being reported by Amateur Photographer magazine almost weekly now. What is the justification for this action from the police. Well it’s all to do with Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The act states (section 43 and 44):
43 Search of persons
(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.
(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.
Power to stop and search
44 Authorisations
(1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given—
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.
(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.
I don’t really know what all this technically means, or how it applies outside London, or in Northern Ireland, but it seems to be that if you start taking photographs near a bank, government building, or tourist attraction then in the eyes of some police officers you are potentially a terrorist and they can search you.
Don’t get me wrong, if a police officer asked me what I was doing, and why, I would quite happily explain that I am an amateur photographer, just taking some photographs. However I would not be happy about being made to give my name and address to go on police files as having been searched under the terrorism act.
All this comes just weeks after Andy Trotter, Chief Constable of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said on BBC 1, that it is not ‘an offense to take a photograph in a public place. ‘These powers were brought in to protect the public, not to oppress,’.
Then yesterday the sentiment was reaffirmed.
John Yates, assistant commissioner of specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police, has today issued a statement to all Metropolitan Police members reminding them that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason.
He also says that unless there is a very good reason, ‘people taking photographs should not be stopped’.
Taken from BJP website
I don’t know of anyone personally that has been stopped, but if you do please share the story in the comments of this post.While reading various articles about this type of event, and section 44 I came across this useful advice to keep in mind if you do get stopped.
- You do not have to give your name and address
- You do not have to explain why you are there (though it may be advisable if you don’t wish to get arrested)
- If requested, a police officer can ask to see what photographs are on your camera, but has NO power to delete them.
- Police officers have no power to stop you taking photographs in a public place, under section 43 or section 44.
- Take details about the Police officer(s) searching you, name, badge number, police force etc.
- Take details about the search itself, time, place, length, what was searched.
- Keep any documentation the police officer(s) give to you
What are your experiences or thoughts on this issue, let me know.
Also here are some useful links that I came across, and people recommended.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871996 – This is one of many articles on the BJP website on the issue
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/11/photographs-police-anti-terrorism-laws – Guardian Video of a video-grapher at St. Mary’s Axe
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/ – Amateur Photographer News section, a whole host of articles
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/your-rights-under-section-44.shtml - Your Rights under Section 44
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2-l1g44 – Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060308/gillan-1.htm – R & Another vs Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another
Good post Connor, Comprehensive, some of this i wasn’t totally aware of……
Good old anti-terrorism legislation.
The TA is a permanent piece of legislation so it applies to everyone, not just photographers or members of the press, in any designated area, so not always banks or government buildings; places where there’s a protest, a parade or a crime are the more likely candidates and can be designated for up to 28 days.
As far as I’m aware, a lot of Northern Ireland is designated a lot of the time because of the potential terrorist threat.
I know the guy Gillan who took the case I sent you, in the last link. He was stopped and searched while completely innocently at an anti-arms rally in London.
His case didn’t stand up on breach of the right to liberty- “the procedure will ordinarily be relatively brief. The person stopped will not be arrested, handcuffed, confined or removed to any different place.”
or breach of the right to family and private life- “it is doubtful whether an ordinary superficial search of the person can be said to show a lack of respect for private life.”
In my opinion, the rationale behind the powers are quite understanable- “In exercising the power the constable is not free to act arbitrarily, and will be open to civil suit if he does. It is true that he need have no suspicion before stopping and searching a member of the public. This cannot, realistically, be interpreted as a warrant to stop and search people who are obviously not terrorist suspects, which would be futile and time-wasting. It is to ensure that a constable is not deterred from stopping and searching a person whom he does suspect as a potential terrorist by the fear that he could not show reasonable grounds for his suspicion.”
I would hazard to say that the stopping and searching of a photographer or another ordinary person is going to be the exception rather than the norm under s 44, and almost certainly won’t happen out of the blue if you’re taking photos of a pigeon or something outside city hall.
If stopped and searched I wouldn’t kick up a lot of fuss, the procedure is going to be relatively brief, its not going to be a big deal. It will be a big deal, however, if you refuse to co-operate.
If you’re stopped by the police in your car for seemingly no reason you’re very unlikely to refuse to give them your name and other details, even though you’re briefly detained and your privacy is invaded. Just because something is given the label “terrorism” doesn’t mean its an automatic violation of the rights of ordinary people, or that its going to be used arbitrarily, think about it, why would police waste their time?
Its all about proportionality, if in the event of a potential terrorist situation, the searching of a guy with a few camera bags is, in my opinion, a small price to pay to counteract a potential bomb or shooting.
Great article mate – always good to see so much stuff pulled together into one place. I watched the Guardian video a few days ago, really interesting stuff. I guess my take on it is that I don’t mind police having these powers, but I care about how they are implemented. Much like you I’d happily explain what I’m doing, but am not up for my name/ address being recorded somewhere under S44.
I do have a bit of an issue with the focus on photographers in practice – if S44 is designed to be used with any vehicle or pedestrian posing a potential threat, why are the only stories we hear of it’s use focusing on photographers? What about the guy who sits in a coffee store across the street all day watching who comes and goes from the building? Or the family who buy an appartment overlooking it? Etc… I’m not advocating everybody being suspicious of everyone (where has that gotten us, other than out current situation), but my point is simply that in practice S44 does appear to focus on photographers more than any other group, for no specific reason.
But then… I’ve been known to be wrong before…!
Being searched on the job… well, tough luck. The businessman may be required to open his briefcase in an airport, so the photographer may have to show his pictures to a policeman in a designated area. Occupational hazard. Aeroplane… buzzing tourist spot… all the same for terrorists, right?
I’d like to hear more about the recording of information once a search is carried out.
I do agree that the government have a duty to protect the country and have given police the power to stop and search people. I do think this is necessary, but it seems that the police have been pretty heavy handed, although this is probably just the stories that make the news. I do think that photographers have become more of target than other people, because they stand out with a big camera, which I guess does arouse suspicion.
It would be good to know in what way the police record/store/use the information recorded, and does it comply with the Data Protection Act, or are the police above this? Or is information recorded under the Terrorism Act exempt from the DP Act…
From Met website;
The fact that you are stopped and held to account and/or searched does not mean that you are under arrest or have done anything wrong. The officer is required to complete a form. The completing and issuing of the search form (or a receipt for a stop) does not amount to you having a police record.
You should receive a written record of the search or a receipt of the stop at the time of the event. If you want to complain either about being stopped or searched or the way it was carried out, this record / receipt will help identify the circumstances.
Supervisors at the police station also keep a copy of the search record. They use it to monitor the use of stop and stop and search powers and check for any inappropriate use. The police service must also make arrangements for community representatives to look at their stop and search records.
Police may use the search record at a later date to contact you about anything that may have happened in that area around the time you were stopped.
You will normally be given a search record at the time of the event. However, because of operational demands (public order situations, large public events, or if an officer is called to an emergency) you may be told where to collect the record later. A record must be made available for up to 12 months.
The search record must contain the following information:
* the officer details
* the date, time and place of the stop and search
* the reason for the stop and search
* the outcome of the stop and search
* your self-defined ethnicity
* the vehicle registration number (if relevant)
* what the officers were looking for and anything they found
* your name or a description if you refuse to give your name – you do not have to provide the officer with your name and address.
Obviously I am coming at this with a strong bias in favour of the photographers. I know it doesn’t mean that you have a criminal record, but there is still a record of being searched under the terrorism act.
I think Emma has a good point, are photographers picked out to be searched because they have a tripod and big camera? The person sitting in a coffee shop beneath the London Eye, jotting things down in their notebook, are they searched and their notebook read, because they are in a ‘high risk’ area.
The news yesterday about the terrorist attack that was foiled by the police using their stop and search powers is good, yes, in this case the police were wise to do that based on the circumstances, however the person was arrested before being searched. Also the person in question was subtly and covertly filming around London, there is a difference between that and when some is quite clearly a photographer, and is not trying to subtly or covertly take photos.
Thought you might find this interesting if you haven’t already seen it: http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/