In a written answer to Conservative Shadow Attorney General Domininc Grieve, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith yesterday stated that new guidance would be issued to police in November regarding s.44 searches of photographers:-
Terrorism: Stop and Search
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance her Department has given to the police on the exercise of their power under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop and search those taking photographs in public places. [219421
]acqui Smith: Guidance on stop and search powers under section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 was issued by the Home Office in Home Office Circular 038/2004 on 1 July 2004 covering the authorisations for the use of the power.
Operational guidance on the use of section 44 stop and search powers was issued by the National Policing Improvement Agency and the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2006.
Following a commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in October 2007, the operational guidance issued to the police on section 44 is currently being reviewed by the Home Office, the police, community groups and other stakeholders. The National Police Improvement Agency will issue revised guidance to all police forces in November. This will cover the taking of photographs in public places, although the general position is that there is no legal restriction on photography in such places.
Source : Hansard (Crown copyright)
Along with the ambiguous statement made by Jacqui Smith, there is the issue of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which will, if passed by the Lords, and in all likelihood it will, make it potentially an offence to record the activities of the security forces even if such recording is evidence of wrongdoing or infringement of civil liberties.
More from theregister.co.uk here.
A cynic might correctly infer from Smith's disingenuous answer that within Home Office Circular 038/2004 no guidance was given to police regarding the use of s.44 regarding photographers in particular. All this nonsense is not her responsibility in other words, but entirely down to police 'operational priorities'. Which seems to be carte blanche for a deliberate agenda of discouraging inconvenient photography by harassment, since there aren't actually any laws against it.
So I wouldn't hold your breath about getting a reply from your local Chief Constable.
The 'difficult' relationship between police and photographers goes back a long way. They always were prepared to use obstruction as a threat against anyone standing still for long enough to take a picture in the wrong circumstances. Now they have anti-terror laws, a far better and more self-important excuse, and of course there are many more photographers to 'manage'.
I almost don't want this government to do or say anything because they seem only to make things worse by creating ever more authoritarian tools to misuse.
As for Dominic Grieve, he has at least been vocal in decrying the latest Labour proposals to monitor and archive every email and internet communication. But would the Conservatives tear down the CCTV cameras and repeal these laws? I suspect that once in power, any party would find it easier and more convenient to acquiesce.
Photorights admin
That probably explains why I have not had a reply from my local plod regarding my query as to what guidance PCs and CPSOs have had from their Chief Constable in my county. Answer: wait until November but it's a bit rude that the police haven't even acknowledged my e-mail that I sent about 10 weeks ago!
Is this the right place to make a plea for plain english? Probably not but what the 'ell are "community groups" - are they elected bodies, do they represent me and how do you find out about them etc? And what the 'ell's a stakeholder when it's at home? Is that what I am and how do I find out?
Questions, questions...I wish it all made more sense! Still Dominic Grieve is, at last, seeming to be asking the right questions. If they get in perhaps they'll get plod to loosen up a bit!
Post new comment