Sussex police try new tactic to relieve snappers of pics
Section 19. Nanananana..........
The problem of police decision-making on who is permitted to take photographs of what is highlighted again in a disturbing incident at the weekend, where film was seized at an anti-fascist protest in Brighton.
According to a statement by Sussex Police: "Under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act , an officer policing the event seized a video tape from a member of the public. Section 23 of the Act states that this can take place in 'any place', providing the officer is lawfully there and has reasonable grounds to believe it provides evidence of a criminal offence.
"The officer reasonably believed the tape contained evidence of a protester being assaulted by someone taking part in the march. It has been seized temporarily to ensure that evidence cannot be inadvertently lost or altered and will be returned, intact, to the owner as soon as possible."
This is an interesting development legally and not one that has been heard of elsewhere in the police.
We spoke with the Met, and while they were unable categorically to deny the use of s19 in this fashion, our contact there suggested that in his experience the easiest way to obtain photographic evidence of a crime was "to ask the individual concerned – or their editor where news media were involved".
What about ACPO? They are in the process of updating their guidelines on the release of images to the media, and have also recently updated their guidance note on the rights of the public to take photos in public places – but have said nothing on this matter.
This may be a one-off - if not, it is worrying. Photographer and blogger Marc Vallée spoke to human rights lawyer Anna Mazzola of Hickman & Rose. She said: "This episode reveals a worrying policy.
"Sussex police clearly think that Section 19 entitles them to remove film and footage from people where they suspect they have evidence of a crime and they can say that they have reason to believe the person may destroy that evidence.
"That is disturbing news for journalists and amateur photographers, particularly those covering public order events. While the police obviously have a duty to prevent and detect crime, they also have to provide some assurance that they will not use Section 19 to seize journalistic material." ®
Isn't it lucky ...
... that they didn't do this with the video of the assault on Ian Tomlinson.
This is going to keep happening
Until someone with the resources to bring a judicial review puts them in their place.
@Alex King: "had I been assaulted, I would want the police to seize video evidence"
So what would you do if you were treated badly or even assaulted by the police?
Whilst most police try to do a good job, often in difficult circumstances, no one can deny that some police do not follow every rule and some even break the law very badly (as the news yesterday showed about that assault case jailed officer, who throw the woman to the floor in the jail cell).
All Police have to follow strict rules of conduct, yet some bad elements think their police powers comes from their uniforms and not the law and so they act like they are the law; that their words are law and you cannot tell them no, even if you are totally right and totally within your rights to speak against what they say. (Don't forget people with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are attracted to jobs that give them power over people, yet that kind of person is the wrong kind of person to be in the police because they are so unfairly Narcissistic). Cameras have the power to undercover these bad officers. Its no wonder then that some police are going after cameras and don't like to be filmed. If anything they need to be filmed far more often and in situations where they cannot get access to the film to destroy evidence of their own wrong doing.