Amateur Photographer Magazine

 Photographers 'guilty' until proved innocent - Photographers hit by new law

Monday 9th March 2009

Rupert Grey

On 16 February 2009, the right to take photographs in a public place was further restricted when the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 came into effect, writes lawyer Rupert Grey (pictured).

What the new law says
Section 76 of the newly introduced Terrorism Act 2008 states: 'A person commits an offence who elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been: a member of Her Majesty's forces, a member of any of the intelligence services, or a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates any such information.' The law adds that a person found guilty of such an offence faces up to ten years in prison or a fine, or both.

The Home Office's claim that it will not change anything is nonsense (see News, AP 21 February).

Under the existing law (Section 43, Terrorist Act 2000) the police can stop and search a person 'whom he reasonably suspects' to be a terrorist; he can also confiscate anything which he reasonably suspects may be evidence of terrorism.

There is an additional power (Section 44 of the 2000 Act) for a police constable to stop and search an individual – and confiscate an article – whether or not there are grounds to suspect a connection with terrorism, provided prior authority has been obtained. The authorisation must be confined to a geographical area and length of time.

The new offence created by the 2008 Act affects photographers in particular: it is now an offence to obtain or attempt to obtain 'information' about a police constable that is 'likely to be useful' to a terrorist. Photographs in which police constables can be identified are information. The Act is silent on whether Police Community Support Officers are included.

Presumption of guilt
There is a possible defence: the photographer has to 'adduce evidence' that he/she 'had a reasonable excuse' for taking the picture. To put it in plain English, you are guilty until you have proved yourself innocent.

This is a radical departure from the basic principle of English Law: that you are innocent until proved guilty. Until the new Act took effect, you did not need to have 'an excuse to take photographs'.

It is difficult to envisage what a valid excuse might be. A holiday snap? To illustrate an article? For fun? Because it's a free country?

Plainly, the Government has to respond to threats of terrorism; none of us has a problem with that. But to do so in a way that directly impairs an important freedom is handing victory to terrorists.

Got an opinion on this story? Why not post a comment on our news message boards

Back to index