“Overzealous” cops could stop press photographers from taking pictures in public under new laws due to come into force later this month.

The Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which updates and amends the Terrorism Act 2000, contains rules targeting gathering information on police officers and members of the armed forces.

Section 76 of the new Act states: “A person commits an offence who elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s forces, a member of any of the intelligence services or a constable which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.”

The Act goes on to say it would be a defence for a person to prove that “they had a reasonable excuse for their action” with convictions carrying a fine, imprisonment or both as punishments.

The new Act is expected to strengthen existing powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 for police to stop and search photographers and prevent them from taking pictures in public.

Olivier Laurent, news editor at the British Journal of Photography, said: “It means anyone that takes images or notes anything about police officers, armed services personnel and Her Majesty’s servants.

“Anything that would be able to be used by terrorists planning an attack.

“Officers could be over zealous and stop photographers, especially in places such as a press photographer covering protests and it looks as if a police officer is doing something that he does not want to be seen, he could invoke that act.

“The fact they will be able to detain that person is of great concern for photographers. A lot of them wouldn’t know their rights.”

In answer to the question whether it gave the green light to officers to arrest photographers for taking pictures of police or military personnel, a Home Office spokesperson said: “It’s down to police forces to interpret whether a crime or offence takes place but that’s not what Section 76 says.”

The new Act was given royal ascent in November and is due to come into force on 16 February.

In recent months, several incidences of photographers being stopped and questioned while taking pictures in public places have come to light.

Leslie Cheyne, from County Durham, said an officer from Cleveland Police stopped him while he was indulging his passion for photographing ships in Redcar.

Mr Cheyne told The Northern Echo the officer asked him if he had any terrorism connections and told him his personal details would be kept on file even though he was not committing a crime.

He said when he phoned the police to complain he was told: “For all we know you could be bin Laden’s brother.”

A Cleveland Police spokesperson said: “If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities.”

Last month it was reported that Andrew Pelling, MP for Croydon Central, was searched by two police officers despite showing his Commons pass after taking photos of a cycle path in his constituency.

Comments

snap not happy (10/02/2009 10:29:54)
Could? Where have you been?

MHmedia (10/02/2009 10:38:39)
Not just press photography, and it’s been happening for quite a while now. The irony is that if you carry something as large and obvious as an SLR they get targetted by our brainless bobbies who obviously believe that we’re up to no good. Contrast this with someone that carries a mobile phone, many of which now have GPS, mobile broadband, half-decent cameras and the ability to embed GPS data in EXIF data. Who do you think poses the most obvious threat???

Popee (10/02/2009 18:12:47)
Looks like 1984 has arrived.
Ok, anyone wanna buy a selection of hefty Nikons – time for me to upgrade to that other well known photographic giant Nokia methinks.

Alan WAtkins (11/02/2009 10:10:41)
I was stopped by a building site security officer the other day and asked what I was photographing. I asked him what it had to do with him: I was on the public highway.
On this occasion I was following my instinct for a story (involving his premises), but I have been stopped by police, opposed by bus inspectors, abused by drivers, chased by CCTV and security cameras – all when pursuing my hobby which is bus photography.
1984 arrived a few years late, but the spread of CCTV, and the growing credo “We believe there is a terrorist threat” has made much of the background to Orwell’s world seem pretty mild.
Nuts I may be.
Terrorist I am not.

Ru_anderson (12/02/2009 16:55:58)
Howabout a boycot of all sports events by press photographers at teh end of next month if Ms(if youve done nothing wrong…) smith dose not reverse her current statnments and clarify this laws intent and circumstance?
Given the number of photographers/journalists being herassed because of this heavyhanded adn counter productive freefor all guidance why not just refuse to take photos at sports event in uk on basis that you may contraveen terrorisim act by inadvertantly capturing a PC in the photograph? That said
Why isnt the NUJ organising this instead of just taking supscriptions?

ru_anderson (12/02/2009 16:57:34)
(Sorry for typos Ill try to use just one thumb next time …!)

David Murray (04/03/2009 22:57:24)
Fellow bloggers have mentioned 1984. This was the year the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force. Police officers are governed by this Act primarily. Under sections 1 -3, there has to be an objective basis for the stop and search, e.g. a suspicion that the person stopped is in possession of drugs, offensive weapons or stolen property. A constable can ask for your details but, unless you are being reported for an offence, you are not obliged to provide these details. The offence must exist – made up ones should be challenged. A constable is not allowed to detain you to find out your name – also in the Act. The Terrorism Act has to be authorised by a minister, although it is currently in force in London.
The provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 have to be authorised by a senior officer, for a limited time only, where it is considered that there is a very substantial risk of violence breaking out. Then you can be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion. The way to deal with police is to study the Acts and to be fully acquainted with them. Security guards and others can be told to clear off.

karen hutchence (19/05/2009 12:16:03)
If it wasn’t for the press and photographers, the greater public wouldn’t have witnessed police brutality at the recent London protest!
So who does this new terror law benefit? The public, or corruption within the ranks of those very organizations we pay to protect us?