EPUK Editorial Photographers United Kingdom and Ireland. The private mailing list and public resource for editorial photographers

Nottingham photographer found guilty of police obstruction

16 August 2007 - EPUK

A Nottingham photographer who helped draft the guidelines used by the police for dealing with the press has been found guilty of obstructing a police officer while photographing an armed incident.

Alan Lodge, 54, was sentenced at Nottingham Magistrates Court to a nine month conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £400 in court costs. It is not yet clear whether he will appeal the verdict.

His case, which was backed by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), spanned 12 court appearances over an 18 month period.

At an earlier pre-trial hearing, Paul Dhami, representing the defendant, told the court: “Alan Lodge was photographing a police armed response unit on Alfred Street, Nottingham, on Saturday 18th March. He was arrested firstly for assault, then de-arrested. He was then arrested and de-arrested for breach of the peace, before finally being arrested and later charged with obstruction.”

Lodge had stopped to photograph an incident in the Mansfield Road area of central Nottingham on March 18th 2006, which involved a number of armed police officers and a police helicopter.

Shortly after Lodge began photographing the incident from the street, he was asked to stop by a police officer. Lodge refused to do so, citing the police-press guidelines which had been agreed a month earlier.

Defence solicitor Paul Dhami told the court: “It would appear that the officer in question was either not aware of these guidelines or chose to ignore him.”

“The officers took exception to his presence, and one took it upon himself to physically impede Alan and then arrested him”.

“More than a little frightened”

Last year Lodge told EPUK: ““The constable..was shoving me in the chest and pushing me about and advancing on me.”

“The man with the gun turned me round – assaulted me, essentially…and then I have a sub-machine gun in my back, so I’m more than a little frightened at that point.”

Lodge was then informed that he was being arrested for assaulting a police officer, and his camera was taken off him. However, he was then immediately released because of the ongoing police operation, but his camera was not returned.

“I persisted that I would like my camera back, they ignored me, I persisted again, then they arrested me once more for breach of the peace. I was taken down to the police station are charged with obstruction of a police officer”

The prosecutor told the court “By standing so closely in front of the armed response officer, Mr Lodge was obstructing his line of view needed to carry out his duty”

“Astonished” by the outcome

NUJ Nottingham branch secretary Kevin Stanley told Press Gazette: “We believe that this case raises important questions about the relationship between journalists and the police.”

“We particularly call on Nottinghamshire Police to ensure that guidelines issued to police staff and journalists more than eighteen months ago; are properly followed by officers. The guidelines, endorsed by the Chief Constable, state that journalists should not be moved on or arrested simply for doing their job.”

“Despite the best efforts of the corporate communications department of Nottinghamshire Police, we feel that not enough rank-and-file officers fully understand the need for these guidelines or why they are so important. We therefore call upon the chief constable to reiterate the letter and the spirit of the guidelines to all officers.”

John Toner, the NUJ’s freelance organiser attended the whole trial and said he was “astonished” at the outcome. “In my opinion, our barrister Ben Mills was excellent and I remain convinced that the weight of evidence supported the defence. Alan was dignified and truthful throughout.”

“I would, though, urge photographers not to panic over this judgement. It was an unusual case, and the elements of one case cannot easily compare with the elements of another. The outcome should not deter photographers from going about their business as normal.”

Want to contact the EPUK Website editor? editor@epuk.org

Comments

I trust that this gentleman has been advised to appeal this decision to a higher and more just tribunal.

Comment 1: Pat Flanagan, 29 June 2008, 06:39 PM

Comment on this article

(Your email will not appear on your comment, but we cannot accept your comment without one. We won't give your email address to anyone else)
(You don't need to enter your website address, but if you do, your post will link to it)
 

EPUK reserves the right to edit or delete posts which the moderators feel are irrelevant, offensive, libelous, untrue or just plain nutty; and in extreme cases, to ban those who make them.


EPUK is discussing:

Copyright infringements and how to manage them DACS Payback'Crafted in Britain' by Rob Scott Photographing in public places - where/when/is it allowed?

What is EPUK?

EPUK is an email group for professional editorial photographers who want to talk business. We don’t do techie stuff or in-crowd gossip. We don’t talk cameras or computers. What we talk about are the nuts and bolts of being in business - like copyright, licensing, fees and insurance.

Donate to EPUK

EPUK is run on a not-for-profit basis, funded solely by advertising, donations and hosting other lists. You can make a donation to EPUK through Paypal here:

Donate Now with PayPal

Site content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact editor@epuk.org who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and EPUK and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. EPUK is not responsible for third party content, such as epuk.org adverts, other websites linked to from epuk.org, or comments added to articles by visitors.