BRIGHTON, UNITED KINGDOM – 30.08.10. A police evidence bag with film shot by local man Glenn Williams of an anti-fascist protest. The film cassette was seized by police on the street under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on Monday 30 August 2010 Brighton, England. Early in the day police clashed with around 200 anti-fascist campaigners as around 40 far-right nationalist protesters congregated under heavy police protection. Police used dogs and horses to clear anti-fascist protesters blocking streets in Brighton to stop the far right march. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2010. All rights reserved.
Link: Click here to view more pictures.
Audio: Police seize protesters film
On Monday I covered a protest in Brighton. I saw the police seize an anti-fascist protesters film cassette. The police used Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. What I found out is of great concern for photographers, journalists, media activists and especially New York fund managers.
Below is part of Section 19 of PACE:
(3) The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing —
(a) that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; and
(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.
So is it lawful for the police to seize media content from a member of the public on the street? It all comes down to the PACE definition of premises.
You can find that definition in Section 23.
The definition includes two very chilling words, “any place”.
I asked human rights lawyer Anna Mazzola from Hickman & Rose for her view on the use of Section 19 in a public order context.
“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.”
Tags: "Anti-Fascist" ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers Brighton EDL English Defence League Evidence Evidence Bag Far right Fascist Film Forward Intelligence Team Free Press Glenn Williams Home Office Human Rights Law Media Activists Media Freedom Media Workers Nationalist PACE Photography Photojournalism Police Political Protest Project Public Right Riot Section 19 State State Repression
Filed under: Investigations, Journalism/Press Freedom, Political Protest Project. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.
This is why (as an amateur) I use Qik to film at protests now – it streams live to the Internet and saves the recording there, meaning that even if my phone gets ‘accidentally’ hit with a baton, or confiscated to ‘protect’ the evidence on it, the video footage (including the final moments) is safely uploaded where the police can’t prevent it being seen.
Are there any similar steps people using more professional kit could use, to back up into the cloud ‘as you go’?
@Denny – not sure about ‘more professional’ kit, but you can get SDCards like the ‘Eye Fi’ that will stream photos that are taken on DSLR over WiFi to a special server. Combine that with WiFi tethering on your phone and you’ve got the ability for your photos to be streamed straight to your home PC, for the cost of your data bandwidth.
I’m the Head of Media Relations at Sussex Police and came across your blog from someone sending it to me on Twitter. I spent considerable time looking into this yesterday and speaking to The Guardian about it.
You raise issues of considerable interest to media, others who record public events and the police. I’m pleased to see them debated in an open forum and trust you don’t object to me having an equal voice in this conversation, albeit one that may be in the minority.
First, I’ll copy the full statement we gave to The Guardian yesterday and, below this, address and give my opinion on the more specific issues your blog raises:
“Sussex Police fully recognises and supports the rights of media and the public to record events, including police activity, in public places. We made no attempt to restrict this – or to delete or permanently confiscate any recorded material – during the march and counter-protect in Brighton yesterday (Monday 30 August).
“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.
“A 42-year-old man from Portslade was arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm at the scene. He has been interviewed and released on bail until October while the investigation continues.”
As a starter, I totally agree that the wording of Section 23 is very broad. Speaking to our legal team and looking at legal professionals’ interpretations online, I’m not aware of any precedent where this broad definition has been challenged in court. However, I think clarification would be beneficial to all parties.
I’m also the first to admit that, unfortunately, police officers are sometimes uninformed about their powers (or, more precisely, their lack of powers) when it comes to seizing journalistic material. Indeed, since I took up my post in November 2009, there’ve been two times when material was inappropriately temporarily seized from media by Sussex officers. In both cases, unreserved apologies were given, the officers involved were given management advice and since then we’ve started a training programme to make everyone more aware of the rights people have to record in public places.
I raise this as I would have taken a similar course of action if I thought similar mistakes had been on Monday. However, speaking to our legal team and the officers involved, I am confident the law was applied appropriately in this case.
The officer had reasonable grounds to believe the tape contained footage of someone on the march assaulting one of the counter-protesters (for which a man has been arrested), as he witnessed both the assault and the nearby recording. 3b of Section 19 allows the material to be seized to prevent it being altered or lost. This does not require a belief that the material will be purposefully altered or lost by the owner – in fact we’ve made no suggestion that this was the reason for the seizure – but avoids the potential for loss of evidence to happen accidentally, something that could reasonably happen given the nature of video tapes.
This was not a spurious or over-zealous seizure, but in relation to a specific witnessed offence. There is also no intention to permanently confiscate the footage or prevent it being aired publicly and, as I’m sure you’re aware, Section 22 of PACE only allows it to be temporarily retained until copies can be made. The officers investigating will be returning the tape to its owner at the earliest opportunity.
It’s also worth mentioning that after discussion with The Guardian they agreed that while the issues around Sections 19 and 23 merit debate – indeed, I have significant personal and professional interest in this myself – basing a story around this incident would not have been proportionate, hence they decided not to run it.
I totally support the police being held to account for improper practice in the seizure of journalistic material and, having worked in media relations for many years, know the frustrations this quite-rightly causes when it does happen. However, having spent considerable time looking at this incident and the legislation involved, I do not think the officers involved have misinterpreted or misused the legislation. Were the legislation subject to amendment or legal challenge, I would absolutely support its interpretation and use being re-examined.
Sorry for the length of this comment and I hope it’s useful. I’ll do my best to respond to any further posts here or on Twitter, but ask for understanding that I also have lots of other tasks ongoing.
I was the person who had his footage taken.
When the GBH incident you described happened I was several blocks away but have since been told the details of the episode. When the footage was later taken I was told it was because I had filmed an alleged assault which occurred when a man on a disability scooter apparently drove over the foot of an officer. At the time of the incident the officer who I only know as Darren (but not his surname) told me to move away and stop filming or he’d take my camera. This is clearly unlawful and I said so at the time. However I did move away but it is clear he was already predisposed towards taking my footage or indeed my actual camera. As I later found out the man concerned was told at the scene that he would not be charged which makes the ostensible reason they seized my film seem slightly ridiculous.
I would like to know which officer placed me in the vicinity of the alleged assault as it seems to me that at best the wrong information has been given to you and at worst the police are being disingenuous and just taking advantage of someone who had had his footage taken three times before with his camera being taken by physical force on one of those occasions. Although I am “of good character” I am very well known to Sussex Police so it is unlikely that I would have been mistakenly identified as being present at the scene. The footage was taken from me some hours after either incident when I was about to go home so clearly there was no problem identifying me then.
I would suggest the seizure has been linked with the more serious offence retrospectively due to unexpected media interest as it would have been much more difficult to publicly justify the seizure over a relatively trivial episode which could be interpreted as a gross misuse of the legislation. Although I don’t have the exact wording it is, incidentally, interesting that the Blackstone’s Police handbook explains that this legislation should not be abused by the police taking items from members of the public.
@Glenn Williams
Thank you for posting.
Have the police given you any indication when you will get the film back?
@Nick Cloke
Thank you for posting here.
“Indeed, since I took up my post in November 2009, there’ve been two times when material was inappropriately temporarily seized from media by Sussex officers. In both cases, unreserved apologies were given, the officers involved were given management advice and since then we’ve started a training programme to make everyone more aware of the rights people have to record in public places.”
Can you give us the contexts to these cases?
@Nick Cloke
What is your forces position on the use Section 19 on a person who holds a UK Press Card? Have you issued guidelines on this? And if so can we see them?
Nick Cloke wrote: “having spent considerable time looking at this incident and the legislation involved, I do not think the officers involved have misinterpreted or misused the legislation”
Glenn Williams wrote: “At the time of the incident the officer who I only know as Darren (but not his surname) told me to move away and stop filming or he’d take my camera. This is clearly unlawful and I said so at the time. However I did move away but it is clear he was already predisposed towards taking my footage or indeed my actual camera. As I later found out the man concerned was told at the scene that he would not be charged which makes the ostensible reason they seized my film seem slightly ridiculous.”
Are you saying that Glenn is lying Nick?
Because if he is telling the truth (which I reckon he is) then you appear to be rubber-stamping the abuse of police powers.
[...] taken one step further, as a member of a counter-demonstration who was videoing the events had his camera tape removed as ‘evidence’, despite claiming not to have witnessed the alleged [...]
“Have the police given you any indication when you will get the film back?”
They haven't but assuming they decide not to prosecute the man on the disability scooter which might require my crucial video evidence I would imagine it won't be that long before I get it back.
The evidence of a police officer threatening to take my camera away from me if I don't move on might be of use to me though once I do get it back.
I’ve looked over all the information I’ve got about the confiscation of the tape and can assure you I’ve not attempted to be misleading. I wasn’t at the event and have no reason to challenge what you say – in fact, in conjunction with the correspondence I’ve had already with officers, your account makes things clearer.
Before explaining what I know about the alleged assaults and how I collated this information, it concerns me that you were given unlawful direction to stop filming in your initial encounter with the officer. This should not have happened and I will be following it up with the officer and their supervisor. The officer has been identified from the collar number in the pictures, but as I haven’t yet had a chance to address this, it seems unfair to name him now, particularly as naming will not impact on either your or my comments.
I can also understand your frustration at having had footage seized before and hope that it was promptly returned. Since I started in November 2009, any complaints about these kinds of issues should have been sent to me, so I can only apologise if this happened since then and I wasn’t informed. Also, whether you’re ‘known’ to police or not has no bearing on your right to film unhindered in public.
I was aware of both incidents – the alleged mobility scooter assault on an officer and the alleged assault on a protester – but understood that both took place in nearby areas shortly after one another. I’ve no reason to doubt your claim that you were further away from the second incident, which will of course be proven when then footage is viewed.
If you were not near the second offence, then my misunderstanding of the conversation I had with the investigating officer has led to the incorrect summarisation that the seizing officer observed both the assault on the protester and your recording nearby. They could have meant that the seizing officer observed you recording the first incident and then witnessed the second incident nearby to the first, from which I appear to have incorrectly suggested that you were there during both incidents.
From the same conversation with the investigating officer and a follow-up email, I know that the tape is being considered in relation to both offences. Their reason for waiting until you were leaving the event before seizing the footage was likely because they felt this was an easier and less-inflammatory option than seizing it while incidents were ongoing and while you were still filming.
As you suggest, it is feasible that the footage was linked to the second offence retrospectively – I did not ask the investigating officer this. If so, this linking had taken place on Monday when the crime investigation started, way before I received the initial media enquiry on Tuesday lunchtime. Please do not think that the media ‘tail’ is wagging the investigative ‘dog’!
As I understood it, both offences had taken place nearby and the footage seized was being considered in relation to both, so my only reason for not mentioning the mobility scooter incident was that no one had been arrested in relation to it and, as you suggest, it’s less likely action would be taken in this case. There was no malicious intent in this omission or a desire to manipulate the circumstances to strengthen my points.
Firstly, I would not risk a personal and professional integrity that I have spent many years building over this or any other matter. Although I expect some scepticism around this next statement, I got into police media relations because I’m interested in policing and helping to solve serious crimes through the media; not a desire to blindly defend when we have made mistakes, as you’ll see through my track-record when they have been made. Secondly, I would have made exactly the same points around the validity of Sections 19 and 23 in allowing the tape to be seized in relation to either offence, as the legislation makes no distinction around the perceived ‘seriousness’ of an offence.
I totally agree with your final point that the powers should not be abused to ‘take’ items from the public and, as I mentioned earlier, have my own concerns about the broad nature of the Section 23 definitions. However, from what I have seen the reasonable belief that your footage contained evidence to support the investigation of either or both of the offences remains justified.
As the detective is yet to view the footage, ironically we cannot yet say whether or not it does contain useful evidence – I’m sure you will let us know when you’ve looked through it yourself! I do know that the video tape has now been passed to the unit that produces copies for evidential use and your original will be returned intact ASAP.
Sorry for another lengthy post (added so late too), but I wanted to double-check all the information I have and come back to you while it’s still fresh in my mind before I head to bed. I’ll also add that I’m not paid any out-of-hours allowance or overtime, so this has been done in my own time.
Sorry Glenn (and others), crossed-wires while I was writing that last post. Will answer questions asked since and not addressed in response. Some of these have also already been answered on Twitter, but happy to expand and repost here…
@Marc “Have the police given you any indication when you will get the film back?”
Copies are being made to work from, so the original intact footage should be returned shortly.
@Marc “Can you give us the context to these cases?”
[Expanded from Twitter] Both involved media, but not Section 19 as they were not to do with criminal investigations.
In case 1, an officer stopped a photographer photographing a suicidal woman on a cliff while police were trying to talk her down. A cordon had not yet been put up as the first officers on scene were more-focused on the woman, so the photographer was in an unrestricted public place. The officer’s actions were well-intended as she thought she was reducing harm to the suicidal woman, but nevertheless she had no power to seize the camera. It was returned promptly at the police station, an apology made and the photographs were used.
Case 2 was a little simpler – two officers outside a court stopped a photographer who they thought had taken photographs a protected witness who was subject to reporting restrictions. The camera was temporarily seized on the spot and given back when the officers were assured there were no photos of the individual. The photographer phoned the Media Relations Office straight after; we apologised and advised the officers that the responsibility around reporting restrictions lay with courts and media, not the police.
@Marc “What is your forces position on the use Section 19 on a person who holds a UK Press Card? Have you issued guidelines on this? And if so can we see them?”
[Expanded from Twitter] As with other forces, we do recognise the UK Press Card accreditation scheme and follow the national ACPO Media Advisory Group guidelines when dealing with accredited media. These state that a Court Order should be used if we want to obtain material from accredited media.
I appreciate this creates a contradiction between accredited media and the rest of the public, particularly given that citizen journalism means pretty much anyone can legitimately claim to be reporting an event.
I would clarify that this discrepancy is not of my (or Sussex Police’s) making. In fact, from a personal perspective, I’d welcome more up-to-date national guidance taking better account of citizen journalism. This would do a lot to break down misunderstandings between police and the media, whether accredited or amateur.
The ACPO media guidance is published here: http://bit.ly/aZakgA (pg 47, point 3 refers). The document refers specifically to the Metropolitan Police but has since been localised and adopted by other forces, including Sussex.
@ftp “Are you saying that Glenn is lying Nick? Because if he is telling the truth (which I reckon he is) then you appear to be rubber-stamping the abuse of police powers.”
No, quite the opposite (to both accusing him of lying or ‘rubber-stamping’), as you’ll see from my post written before I saw your comment. Don’t feel the need to apologise for your own assumptions or state any bias though, despite me clearly doing both
@Glenn “The evidence of a police officer threatening to take my camera away from me if I don’t move on might be of use to me though once I do get it back.”
While you’re quite entitled to share this publicly (and I’d hazard a guess you would choose to!) if it does show that, I’d also be keen to see a copy so that I can respond internally also.
Again to summarise, I hope I’ve made it clear that I do recognise police get it wrong sometimes and it’s in my best interests for positive and open media relations, as much as in yours for effective journalism, for this ideally not to happy or to be accepted and corrected when unfortunately it does.
[...] On his blog, Vallée reports: The film cassette was seized by police on the street under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on Monday 30 August 2010 Brighton, England. [...]
Very informative and especially well done to Nick Cloke for his detailed responses. I have been stopped by B Transport police ref photography and it wasn’t a very pleasant experience.
Hi, Mr. Cloke
You sound to me like a ‘Fair Cop’ (If you’ll forgive the pun).
Doesn’t sound particularly unreasonable to me. In fact, if I knew I’d filmed a criminal act, I’d pass the camera to the nearest copper around, before being asked. If the police *thought* I’d accidentally caught a criminal act, and asked me for my camera, explaining why, no problem either. I’d even go to the police station to show ‘em how to download it (hundreds of different models, can’t expect PC Plod to know ‘em all…)
Andy, Oulu, Finland.
@Glenn…doing a follow-up to ths story after my reporin today’s Register, which is here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/08/police_photography_s19/
So, anyway…would very much apreciate a chat…tonight if poss (anyone reading this who knows Glenn very welcome to pass message on)…and in first instance drop a ine to jane@ozimek.co.uk
many
jane
xx
@Andy – Of course most reasonable people (and I include myself in that category) would respond positively to a reasonable request from a police officer if a major crime or incident had occurred. But this seizure took place in circumstances that do not fall into that scenario. This is the fourth time this has happened to me in each case the circumstances were dodgy to say the least and in one case was combined with a common assault by th police officer. As usual when it comes to protest the police make their own rules and it’s only when they are ‘found out’ that the great British public start to cotton on that something is not quite right.
We would never have known about Ian Tomlinson had the police used the same tactics to take the camera which contained the footage later revealed to show the facts behind the assault that led to his death.
My issues with this are pretty simple. On the most part the police act like complete a**h**** and its left to people like Nick to respond with pretty much an ‘oops we’ll do our best to make sure it doesn’t happen again’.
Shouldn’t the owner of the original material be present during any copying of material to ensure that his privacy in relation to any other material that may be present on the media is secure.
On the subject of photographic freedoms and possible curtailment by the police, why do professional (or semi for that matter), try to distance themselves from amateur photographers? By ramming home the point on these types of site that you are a card carrying journalist I think you are missing the point that the law applies equally to amateurs as well – or are amateurs not as worthy in your opinion?