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

"Photographers being arrested to seize evidence" claim at NUJ Photographers' Conference

3 March 2007 - EPUK

The first NUJ Photographers’ Conference heard claims that police are using their powers of arrest to seize journalists’ material and circumvent the Special Procedure Material protections in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

Solicitor Mike Schwartz of Bindman and Partners told conference attendees that police were circumventing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Special Procedure Material safeguards, designed to protect journalistic material such as photographs and notebooks.

“Sadly, I think one of the dangers is that the police are using their powers to arrest journalists and photojournalists in order to get round the protections which are built into PACE which are supposed to protect journalistic material.”, he told the conference.

“The police are arresting journalists, seizing their equipment, treating them as suspects, looking at their photographs, taking copies, perhaps returning them to them, taking no further action often (but not always) and they’ve got, straight away, what they want.”

“Police seeking your evidence”

The session, one of four held during the one-day conference, saw talks by Commander Robert Broadhurst, responsible for policing all public order events across the Metropolitan Police Force area, Mike Grannat from the Press Card authority, and barrister Anthony Hudson.

Schwartz, who advises a number of campaign groups on criminal and public order law said that the nature of newsgathering meant that press photographers were often in a better position to gather evidence than police photographers and videographers.

“At public order events, [press photographers] have got an inside track as to what is going on, much better than the police ever will. Their own clearly marked photographers are often behind police lines, whereas you are there as close to the action as possible, and that makes the material that you have in your possession of great value to the police.”

“At every demonstration, the police are figuratively scratching their heads as to how they can get hold of your material. That’s what they’re after.”

“The police take action, they often get what they want, and allow the lawyers in court to mop up what’s happened afterwards. That’s one of the trends and areas where there is a real problem: the police arresting journalists and seizing their material in order to use it in prosecutions.”

“Not a police state”

“What often happens is journalists are arrested, their material is taken from them, prosecution is not pursued, but then that material is used as part of the prosecution of non-journalists.”

“There are more formal mechanisms, with more rigorous protections for journalists and photographers, that the police are supposed to use to seize journalistic material, but my worry is that these mechanisms are being sidetracked by arrests of journalists being used as a way to getting hold of the material.”

Commander Broadhurst denied the allegations: “The idea of this police state where whenever you go out we’re going to take your photographs, we’re going to arrest you, so you can do our job for us with regards to collecting evidence is not a world that I recognise.”

“I personally don’t know of any incidents where we have gone out of our way to arrest photographers in order to seize footage. We will, however, pursue things through the courts if we feel that you do have something of value to us.”

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, material such as a journalist’s notes, photographs, computer files or tapes are classified as Special Procedure Material, which have a higher level of protection than ordinary possessions.

However, according to Schwartz, the same material can be seized and examined by police if the journalist is arrested as a suspect and the material is considered evidence in the alleged crime for which they have been arrested.

“I’m not suggesting that there is a large scale conspiracy, but the reality is that the effect of the policing is that innocent journalists are at the time, not after the fact, arrested, searched as all arrested people are, the threshold for arrest is pretty low, and barring the exceptional immunity for freedom of expression defences, that power is misused.”

Using photographs to track down G8 rioters

Last year, EPUK reported that Lothian and Borders Police were using photographs taken by professional press photographers in a public appeal to identify suspects who were allegedly involved in riots in Edinburgh in the runup to the G8 summit at Gleneagles.

Because the electronic metadata had been left on the images, the photographers and publications which supplied them to the police could be easily identified. While it is still not clear under what circumstances the police obtained the high-resolution original digital files, EPUK understands that no court injunctions were sought or obtained by the police in respect of the material.

While EPUK knows the identity of the photographers and publications involved, we did not identify them in the original piece. Lothian and Borders Police removed the identifying information after being tipped off by EPUK.

First hour of chaos

Commander Broadhurst said that some of the conlicts between police and press attending hard news events came from both parties arriving on the scene at the same time with very different priorities.

“The role of the police is to bring order and control in that first hour of chaos, but it’s probably in that first hour of chaos when the best pictures will be taken.”

Referring to an anti-war demonstration last October in Parliament Square in which EPUK member Marc Vallée was badly injured, Commander Broadhurst said that it was difficult to discriminate between professional press photographers and other protesters.

“I was expecting small groups of ten or twelve protesters to pop up all over Westminster, doing their best to disrupt Parliament, locking themselves onto gates, scaling towers, all sorts of stuff. In the end, they fell into the trap, they all came out of the tube at the same time, and you’ll remember the pictures of us coralling them into a circle in a bit of a standoff.”

“Press card no use in a melée”

“Photographers such as yourself had free access and free movement around that. The problem is, so do the protesters’ own photographers, because they bring their own photographers in the same way that they bring their own lawyers. Our guys and girls cannot differentiate between those people who are out to make mischief, and those who are genuinely there to take pictures.”

Asked as to whether this was an issue that the National Press Card was designed to address, he added “The Press card is fine, if you’re in a controlled situation. In a situation like the one I described, in a melée of people we can’t start to differentiate between members of the press, members of the public and anyone else with a camera.”

Speaking to the conference, Mike Granatt of the Press Card Authority said that in future it was possible that photographers would need to carry a further form of photographic identity, such as a driving licence or passport, in addition to the national press card. Buckingham Palace already insists on a second form of identification for press photographers.

The conference, the first of its kind for NUJ photographers, and free for NUJ members was widely seen to have been a huge success, although it is not yet clear whether it will become an annual event. Other sessions included talks on photographers rights, copyright and intellectual property, and strategies for business survival.

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


Its Ok if they need them and they ask, but it is certainly not OK if you have got stuff they want because it is evidence against them- they’d just destroy it. This point is not being made. All images are your copyright etc and your intellectual and moral (hopefully!) property and nobody has any right to them without permission, as far as I know. If they do then I do care since I have material- three years of work stolen and not returned to me by [name deleted by EPUK website editor], a thief of a secretary who also stole the work of 40 other photographers, which is probably rotting, all of it in a basement somewhere . That is a lot WORSE than anything any policeman has ever done to any photographer with
their work.MUCH worse.
We need to keep our balkance here.
What is important is that policemen do not arrest or impede photographers from taking pictures wherever they like of whatever they like, but that is not what is going on at all.
Here in Cardiff it is almost impossible to photograph in the street now without some paranoiac calling the police and making a huge fuss that there may be children in your shot.
Of course if the kids are taking photos themselves, its OK for them to do it, but not you. Its OK for kids to smash your windows for example, but it is not OK for you to install a CCTV camera linked to your videorecorder to catch the culprits!!! Oh No!

The NUJ is doing SFA to protect freedom of expression, and SFA to protect children, in any way at all.
The police themselves now say its ridiculous to have to tell a householder he/she cannot point the video/CCTV camera anywhere than an area which contains ONLY the property in whgich he/she lives! So if your local vandals chuck stones from the road, (well, obviously!) you’ve got NO right to film them!!

To me childhood ends when vandalism begins and criminals of any age much be caught, period.
If the police want images I have made to catch criminals- and rioters ARE criminals if they attack the police or other people and damnage property, then they are very welcome. AND that goes for the police breaking the law too. Welcome. But not to arrest me take my equipment, tamper with my evidence and then say I was breaking the law.
Now we have digital cameras it must be made illegal for any policeman to confiscate equipment. The reason is obvious. That officer could then continue to take photographs on my machine which would incriminate me, and then return it after charging me with what he himself had done. A camera can be confiscated for days and then returned to the photographer with these additional images. And as with hard drives even a policeman is quite capable of resetting the time etcetera, such that the evidence on your memory card appears to have been recorded by you.
What concerns the police is the political bias of some photographers might lead them to delete images which incriminated members of the public who worldview they share. So just carry a portable back-up drive and insist you copy off all the pics before the police take your memory card (or film).
Under no circumstance do they need the camera.

Comment 1: peter harrap, 5 March 2007, 12:04 PM

The comments from Commander Broadhurst are very informative.

So according to him, it is ok to knock out a photographer, as long as it is not a professional. Taking pictures to help advocate a political cause, or for use as evidence in court cases arising from political protests is “mischief”. Basically there is no difference between the act of blocking a road and the act of documenting and reporting it, unless you are paid for it. Lawyers apparently are also part of the criminal infrastructure necessary for a good political riot, Mike Schwartz beware!

This is very comforting in a way. So called media activists have long been suffering the disdain of the “real” activists who actually break things. It was about time that someone as experienced as Mr Broadhurst in the dirty world of UK street politics vindicated them. Finally those pesky protesters will realise that media and communications are crucial to any progressive political change.

I have been part of the Indymedia network for a long time, and I am also an NUJ member. Since Indymedia started offering an open publishing platform in 1999, our motto of “converting consumer goods into political tools” has exploded well beyond activist circles. From YouTube to the awful undercutting of wages through abuse of “Citizen Journalism”, the line between journalist, demonstrator and passer-by has been increasingly blurred. Camera size used to be a good indicator of a genuine journalist, but since the fall in prices of digital SLRs their efficiency as amulets against truncheons has somewhat faded. With mobile phones having the resolution of professional cameras from a couple of years ago, you know you are in trouble.

We can then sympathise with the poor Keystone cops trying to hit the baddies, and constantly getting it wrong to the amusement of the fake journos who take pictures. The cops themselves must have some self-deprecating sense of humour, given that they flock to Indymedia to see themselves in action after any public order event.

Maybe it is in a reciprocating spirit that police photographers follow independent journalists on their way home from events, taking literally hundreds of close up pictures of them and their car number plates. Unfortunately they tend to forget to post them online so we can all share a laugh at our distressed faces at the time.

The question we may ask is why instead of reducing the civil rights of professional photographers, as Mr Broadhurst proposes, we don’t increase the protection against police intrusion of all citizens to the level currently enjoyed by journalists.

Politicians keep talking about the Information Society and the Knowledge Economy as if it was just about universal broadband.

Comment 2: Javier Ruiz, 30 March 2007, 01:15 AM

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 Right of panorama Hargreaves - again Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert exhibiting at the National Gallery of Scotland Taylor Swift

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.