Paul Stephenson

Just in July, two plain clothed officers carried out a search in that hot bed of terrorism, Woolwich, SE London and managed to find the behaviour of a six year old girl, her neighbour a girl aged eleven and that girls father, who were walking to a bus stop, as sufficiently dubious that they were stopped and searched using Section 44.

The IPCC are managing the investigation of  the complaint, the Metropolitan police are not yet convinced this event really happened at all, despite the fact that the man was asked to stand in front of a CCTV camera to have his photograph taken and one of the officers also took his photograph, as well as seizing mobile phone, USB and CD from the man. The complaint also surrounds the property which the man has no idea when it will be returned and was provided with no information about who to contact to do so.

The girls were questioned and searched under the same powers.

The Metropolitan Police are a dangerous out of control death squad. Their propensity to murdering innocent people is widely known. Allegations and investigations are being undertaken of police officers in the Met torturing suspects and they continue to abuse their powers.

This is a police force which must be broken up completely. After decades of so called reform and PR speak, they continue to operate outside the law. The history of the corruption of the flying squad in the ’60s, endemic racism in the ’70s and ’80s. Murder in the ’90s and ’00s is the legacy of the Metropolitan Police.

It is unlikely the Police will bother to take much notice of these guidelines, relying on the General Public not understanding the law and believing the police subversion of legislation.

Section 43 is much abused, as the Police under this section can only stop and search someone they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist under this power. Someone can only be

stopped and searched if the police suspect they are a terrorist. Taking photographs in itself is however being used by the police as a reason to suspect someone is a terrorist.

The definition of a terrorist is clarified in section 40 of the Act.

The Home Office in their circular dated 18th August 2009 highlight:

Important: Section 43 does not prohibit the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place and members of the public and the press should not be prevented from doing so in exercise of the powers conferred by section 43.

Under the same section, the Police are not permitted to delete images or destroy film.

Section 44 of the Act, which permits an ‘authorisation of searches’ to be placed on an area. This effectively means a specified area is deemed to be under threat of terrorist activity and this authorisation must be invoked by an assistant police constable or equivalent rank in other police forces or more senior officer.

(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

Section 44 is being misapplied, particularly in relation to demonstrations and marches. Although even individuals taking photographs in a High Street have been subject to stop and search.

Again the Home Office have provided highlighted guidance on Section 44:

Section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs, film or digital images in an authorised area and members of the public and the press should not be prevented from doing so in exercise of the powers conferred by section 44.

adding

If a police officer already reasonably suspects the person to be a terrorist they should use section 43.

Section 58A is also identified by the Home Office as another section being abused.

Section 58 Collection of information

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.

(2) In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

Once again the Home Office produce highlighted guidelines:

Important: Legitimate journalistic activity (such as covering a demonstration for a newspaper) is likely to constitute such an excuse. Similarly an innocent tourist or other sight-seer taking a photograph of a police officer is likely to have a reasonable excuse.

I have doubts that the Police will take a blind bit of notice and any infractions should be continually highlighted, referred to the IPCC and exposed as widely as possible.

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 is another weapon of abuse by the Police. The guidelines on Section 76 are much the same as the 2000 Terrorism Act.

The 2008 Act is discussed at the tail end of this article

On the 8th July 2009 a photographer, Alex Turner, was arrested under the Act for taking photographs and more specifically photographs of a police officer. ThePCSO who arrested the photographer stated because he had taken a photograph of her and that she considered this to be an unlawful obstruction. He further adds in his report ‘…I cannot recall exactly what she said but I do recall her referring to my size and inferring she found it intimidating at the time (I am 5ft 11in and weigh about 12 stone)….’

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

The events all took place in Chatham High Street, when the photographer, was taking photographs in the High Street and was approached by two men who asked him what he was doing taking photographs in the High Street. He then explained what he was doing and was asked to provide identity. Fairly reasonably he asked on what authority they were making the request. The two men did not provide an answer with which he was satisfied and waited while uniformed police were called.

He was subsequently arrested and waited in the back of the Police Van while further enquiries were made. He was then asked again if he could provide any identity, which if he was under arrest under Section 44 meant he neither had to provide name or address, nor explain his actions. The photographer took the opportunity to provide ID and was able to provide a photo-card driving licence. After further checks were made he was de-arrested.

Alex asked the PCSO whether he was now free to go and could he continue taking photographs in the High Street, he was advised by the PCSO that this would be absolutely fine, as long as he didn’t take any more photographs of them.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

The continued abuse of legislation is not a tenable position. Section 44 was the section used in the arrest of Walter Wolfgang, while shouting “nonsense” during Jack Straw’s speech at the Labour Party Conference.

Section 44 of the Act requires an area to be subject to a S44 order. Is Chatham High Street under a constant Section 44 order?

The power to stop and search under anti-terrorism powers should only be used when there is evidence of a specific terrorist threat. It should not be simply an addition to the day to day powers of officers policing protests.

The relevant section for arrest for photography is Section 58 of the Act or Section 58a as amended under the 2008 counter-terrorism Act, or alternatively Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008.

The Explanatory Notes to the Counter Terrorism Bill state, the new offence will only be committed where the information in question is “such as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism, and must be of a kind that was likely to provide practical assistant to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.”

The story as related leads to a number of questions about how the Police in Kent operate on a daily basis.

Why do those in plain clothes not understand their requirement to provide identification when requested?

Why do plain clothed Police Officers carry out a pat down search without producing identification?

Why does Kent Police continue to use Section 44 of the Act as a lazy way of policing?

Why supposedly arrest someone for taking photographs and then use the wrong Act to carry out the arrest?

Who do Kent Police think they are when they advise people they shouldn’t take photographs of Police Officers? Taking a photograph of a Police Officer is not an illegal act and never has been.

Kent Police have made the following statement:

Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas said: “Our officers are extremely vigilant and their primary concern is always the safety of the public.

“At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious.

“As a result, he was arrested and asked to wait in a police vehicle while his details were checked. He was released a short time later after these details had been properly verified, and no further action has been taken.

“A formal complaint has subsequently be made in relation to this incident which has been recorded and an investigation has commenced.

Even the Met has managed to catch up with Legislation, providing guidelines to their officers:

“Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel”.

However, there are a few key areas where photography is not allowed. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 says that in an area where S44 is in place, officers can view photos on a phone or camera to see if the images could be used in connection with terrorism.

If the officer “reasonably suspects” those photos will be used in connection with terrorism, then the camera or phone can be seized. Then there’s Section 58a of the same act, which says that the officer has to be able to demonstrate that reasonable suspicion, adding:

“It should ordinarily be considered inappropriate to use Section 58a to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests, as without more, there is no link to terrorism”.