The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 adds the following section 58A into the Terrorism Act 2000:
58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
So it’s an offence to take a picture of a constable if it’s of a kind likely to be useful to a terrorist. Now that - to me at least – is potentially very wide wide and, unfortunately, a completely subjective test. How do you decide what kind of photograph is likely to be useful to a terrorist?
There is a defence if you can show that you had a reasonable excuse for your action. Now, I’ve not read enough about the situations this defence is intended to cover (note that there is a similar defence contained in the Terrorism Act 2000) but I do wonder whether taking a photograph of an officer because - like me - you enjoy street photography or whether, as a photojournalist, you are documenting a story or event.
The Home Office have apparently stated that the new laws will not make it more likely that photographers will be stopped in the first place because (and this doesn’t really reassure me) the Terrorism Act 2000 already makes it an offence to “collect or make a record [which includes a photograph] of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”. This would also cover photographing a police officer.
I guess the problem for us photographers (not that I’ve ever had any problems with the police or members of the public for that matter) is that it gives the police another reason to be suspicious and question the motive behind people’s street photography.
However, I am reassured by the statement the Metropolitan Police issued to Amateur Photographer:
It is important to stress that the new offence is not intended to target or impede professional or amateur photographers, but rather to provide additional protection to front line personnel from possible terrorist attack.
Taking photographs of police officers would not – except in very exceptional circumstances – be covered by the new offence. For the new offence to be committed the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practicable assistance to a terrorist.
Officers have been briefed on this issue and guidance on dealing with the media and photographers is available to them.
Hopefully the police will apply a commonsense approach when enforcing this legislation but only time will tell.
I’ve been a fan of your photography for a while now. Your night pictures of edinborough have put Scotland on the top of my “places to visit” list. I am very excited that you have started a blog to share some of your photography techniques.
This story makes me very worried about the use of racial profiling. “For the new offence to be committed the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practicable assistance to a terrorist.” This makes me wonder if my persian husband and I (both amateur photographers) would arise suspicion when taking tourist shots of “Bobbies” or the Queens Guard if we were to travel to England.
John,
I hope you are right about the authorities (in general) using common sense about this. My concern is that common sense seems to be a precious and rare commodity these days. Given that I am about twice you age I can remember times (no doubt your parents can too) when common sense was often applied, though perhaps less obviously than in the generations before. And so it goes, generation by generation.
The sad thing is that it has been, in general, my generation that has encouraged and overseen the erosion of trust in the public by those who would rule. And vice versa.
That these matters are now coming to a head,, in a country that is usually extremely supine until backed against a wall, may be telling us something.
I read today that the government now wants every pub, off-licence (are there any left?) and drinks sales counter (so every till in every supermarket?) to be specifically equipped with a cctv camera and for the records that makes to be kept for 60 days. By Law. For the benefit of the ‘police’ in case they might use the evidence should some sort of violence occur. It might allow them to trace the perpetrator buying some booze. Is that really worth the effort, cost and intrusion? Are members of the police force and others covered by the ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation to be allowed to ask for the cameras to be turned off?
There are some unpleasant ideas going around at the moment. The sort that no one would have thought possible a decade or so ago. Even if dismissed they seem to come back time and again. If htey take 20 years to come about, as they may, it won’t be of too much practical concern to me I suspect. But you , and my daughters who are maybe a year or two younger than you, will experience the full effects and carry the full costs, societal and emotional as well as fiscal. So it is good, in my opinion, that these observations are coming into the wider public domain before they have been made case law through legal process.
Of course these observations may all come to naught if the current financial crises develops into an even earlier event of social disharmony and cultural dissolution. Heaven knows what the results of that might be.
In all cases it is good that these matters come, eventually, to public attention.
Apologies for all the philosophical stuff. I used to think that things would just work and and stupidity would, in the main, fail to prosper. Now I fear the opposite is true across the world.
Hmm, have a great weekend!
Grant