Feeds

ACPO defuses impending photo row with police forces

Clarification clarified. Clear?

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

Just two weeks since they clarified their position on the law regarding photography, the Association of Chief Police Officers last night issued a short note further clarifying its clarification.

This follows the recent exposure by The Register of a widening gulf between ACPO and local police forces over the question of when it is permissible to seize film or cameras as part of a criminal investigation.

The issue arose as we reported on an incident over the bank holiday weekend in Brighton. Sussex Police seized film from a photographer attending an anti-fascist protest as potential evidence of a violent crime.

This they did this using powers granted to police under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pdf).

Yesterday, however, we noted a possible conflict between Sussex Police's use of the law in this way and recent guidance (.doc) sent to Chief Constables by Andy Trotter, Head of ACPO’s Media Advisory Group, which stated: "Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."

This created something of a stir down in Sussex, leading their head of media relations, Nick Cloke, to observe that this was "new ground" and as far as he was aware "untested legally".

It would appear that at this point alarm bells started ringing at ACPO HQ, and late yesterday afternoon we received a further communication from ACPO. A spokeswoman told us: "We have clarified our guidance note to forces, however, as this does not affect the legal right of officers to seize photographic equipment in certain circumstances, such as during the course of a criminal investigation.

"While it is the job of police officers to be vigilant, to keep an eye out for any suspicious behavior and to act accordingly, we have been very clear in expressing our view that the taking of photographs is not normally a cause for concern. Whether s.19 PACE was used appropriately in the case in question would ultimately be a matter for Sussex."

More to the point, Trotter’s freshly updated advice has been re-issued and now reads: "Once an image has been recorded the police have no power to delete it without a court order; this does not however restrict an officer’s power to seize items where they believe they contain evidence of criminal activity."

For those readers too busy to play compare and contrast, the original guidance stated that the police have no power to confiscate recorded images, whereas the clarified guidance explains that they have. Clear? ®

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

Whitepapers

Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Getting started with customer-focused identity management
Learn why identity is a fundamental requirement to digital growth, and how without it there is no way to identify and engage customers in a meaningful way.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Reducing the cost and complexity of web vulnerability management
How using vulnerability assessments to identify exploitable weaknesses and take corrective action can reduce the risk of hackers finding your site and attacking it.
Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile
Data demand and the rise of virtualization is challenging IT teams to deliver storage performance, scalability and capacity that can keep up, while maximizing efficiency.