PHNAT has now received a response from the GLA on the incident recorded by filmmaker @indyrikki at Parliament Square on Budget Day.

A spokesperson for the GLA said: “The behaviour of one of the wardens shown in the video clip falls well below the standards required by the GLA. It was clearly not appropriate and the byelaws were not being interpreted correctly. We apologise for this lapse and action will be taken to address this.”

Information:

Based on the video clip there was no reason to ask the user of the camera to stop taking images or asking them to leave nor was there any reason to have ushered other members of the public, who were simply enjoying the Square, off of the open grassed area.

There are no restrictions on the use of cameras or camcorders for private or amateur use and a scheme is in place which authorises members of the professional media to go about their news gathering activities on Parliament Square.

In terms of non commercial and amateur photography/footage, the GLA has no legal power, or interest, in relation to where imagines are posted/published, that is totally a matter for the person taking the recording as they are responsible for what they do with their images.

The only time that the use of a camera is likely to be an issue is if an individual is causing harassment to a warden and preventing them carrying out their duties.

On Wednesday 21 March 2012, budget day, filmmaker @indyrikki walked on to the green at Parliament Square. The above video documents what happened next.

In response and to try and gain some clarity on the Parliament Square bylaws PHNAT sent the following open letter to the Mayor’s office, the Culture Department and the GLA.

Dear Sir/Madam,

As you may be now aware this video has appeared on the Internet showing a photographer being told to move from Parliament Square because the reissued bylaws stated no one was allowed on the grass. The varying allegations towards the photographer then get worse from there on. The incident happened on Wednesday 21 March.

http://london.indymedia.org/videos/11961

The video raises some important questions, which need to be clarified. Photography rights campaign group I’m a Photographer Not a Terrorist (PHNAT) is hoping that you are able to provide some guidance on these matters.

Is there any part of the by-law that says an individual is not allowed on the grass at Parliament Square for any length of time?

If so, how long is an individual allowed to stay on the grass before being asked to move?

Is there any part of the by-law that says an individual, professional or amateur, is not allowed to take photographs or film?

The by-laws state that you need prior permission to film or photograph if it is for commercial use. Can you please define what is meant by commercial use? It seems very unclear from this film that the Heritage Wardens or even Heritage Warden Manager Dean Eardley don’t seem to know what is meant by commercial use.

Is posting an image on a website” considered commercial use”?

Is posting an image on a website that is “pro or anti something” considered commercial use?

Are there any further details as to what can and cannot be published on a website?

Do you have any specific websites in mind that people should not publish their non-commercial material on?

Why are the Heritage Wardens shooing tourists off “like pigeons” from the Parliament Square green?

We look forward to your answers to these questions.

Yours Faithfully,

Jason N. Parkinson

I’m A Photographer Not a Terrorist

Olympic Stadium © London 2012 Press Office

With a huge police operation, thousands of troops, private security and new legal powers taking over parts of London during the upcoming Olympic & Paralympic games, the PHNAT campaign will be closely monitoring the experiences of photographers, both amateur and professional, around the events & sites.

We want to hear from you any experiences or incidents, positive or negative, that you’ve had photographing around the olympic site in the run up to or during the games, or otherwise in connection with the olympics (increased stops with olympics given as a reason etc).

Help us track the impact of London 2012 on press freedom & the right to photograph, share this page and if you or anyone you know has issues, please let us know. Email us at olympics@photographernotaterrorist.org *

* – Please note, we cannot give any form of legal advice regarding any incidents, we are just collating accounts.

More Reading: Olympic 2012 Security: Welcome to Lockdown London - The Guardian

PHNAT Flashmob City Hall from Jason N. Parkinson on Vimeo.

Grant Smith & Marc Vallée launching the pamphlet at the AoP Gallery. Image © Jonathan Warren 2011

There was a great turnout at last nights launch party where we gave away over 500 copies of the pamphlet which is available to download now.

We’ve still got lots of copies to give away you can get one by sending a double stamped self-addressed envelope to Photographer Not a Terrorist, 308-312 Gray’s Inn Rd, London WC1X 8DP. If you’d like a handful to leave at a venue please contact us to arrange delivery.

We’d like to again thank the National Union of Journalists and the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom who have funded the production of the pamphlet. Also to the London Photographers’ Branch and British Press Photographers’ Association who have supported the pamphlet. The AoP for letting us use their gallery and ING Media for sponsoring the event.

Download: I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist : A brief history (PDF)

Home Secretary Theresa May announced on the 26 January that the review of counter-terrorism powers made recommendation that the Government should consider whether the police needed new stop and search power more quickly.

On 1 March Theresa May announced that, “given the current threat environment” she had “concluded that the police do need the powers more quickly” and that “the most appropriate way of meeting the legal and operational requirements concerning the counter-terrorism stop and search powers exercisable without reasonable suspicion is to make a remedial order” in the “interests of national security”.

The remedial order replaces Sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and with Section 47A.

From today Section 47A will give a “senior police officer” the power to make an authorisation in “relation to a specified area or place” if the officer“reasonably suspects that an act of terrorism will take place” and “considers that the authorisation is necessary to prevent such an act.”

Under Section 44 the police had to go to the Home Office for authorisation now the police will have a Code of Practice to follow.

Under Section 47A a “constable in uniform” will have the power “to stop a pedestrian” in the specified area and to search them and “anything carried by them”.

This emergency measure brings back stop and search powers that could impact on photographers and journalists right to report and the right of a citizen to make a picture in a public place.

The timing should not go unnoticed, the largest protest against the governments austerity measures and enforced transfer of billions of pounds from the public sector to the private sector will be taking place on the 26th March.

Indiscriminate stop and search powers did not stop a single terror attack against Britain. What it did do was impact on hundreds of thousands of lives across the country.

In January I told the British Journal of Photography:

The devil is always in the detail, and after reading the Home Office review it is clear that the coalition government is planning to give the police new stop-and-search powers to get around the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling. I do not think for one minute that these new powers will protect photographers from harassment and abuse from the police on the streets of Britain, far from it.

Any move to introduce legislation that allows the arbitrary detention of citizens for no crime should be resisted at all costs. In 2000 section 44 was introduced to ‘safeguard the community against terrorism’. The wholesale abuse of that law saw hundreds of thousands detained, public confidence in the police plummeted and not a single person was arrested for a terrorist offence.

Photographers were a particular group to be targeted and this led to the formation of the I’m a Photographer Not a Terrorist (PHNAT) campaign. Blanket laws even applied within a narrowed time frame will single out innocent citizens and is still fundamentally wrong.

The hostile environment created by this law should be the end of it.

Unfortunately there are still a swathe of laws that police can and will still use to harass photographers, most notably Section 43, which is similar to Section 44 but requires an officer to suspect that you are a terrorist and Section 76 which makes it illegal to ‘elicit information about a police officer’ which includes photographing them.

We will also monitor other stop and search powers to see if these are now used against photographers.

The following statement was made by the Home Secretary Theresa May on the 8th July 2010 to the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

On Wednesday of last week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that its judgment in the case of Gillan and Quinton is final. This judgment found that the stop and search powers granted under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 amount to the violation of the right to a private life.

The Court found that the powers are drawn too broadly – at the time of their initial authorisation and when they are used. It also found that the powers contain insufficient safeguards to protect civil liberties.

The Government cannot appeal this judgment – although we would not have done so had we been able. We have always been clear in our concerns about these powers, and they will be included as part of our review of counter-terrorism legislation.

I can therefore tell the House that I will not allow the continued use of section 44 in contravention of the European Court’s ruling and, more importantly, in contravention of the civil liberties of every one of us. But neither will I leave the police without the powers they need to protect us.

Since last Wednesday, I have sought urgent legal advice and consulted police forces. In order to comply with the judgment – but avoid pre-empting the review of counter-terrorism legislation – I have decided to introduce interim guidelines for the police.

I am therefore changing the test for authorisation for the use of section 44 powers from requiring a search to be ‘expedient’ for the prevention of terrorism, to the stricter test of it being ‘necessary’ for that purpose. And, most importantly, I am introducing a new suspicion threshold.

Officers will no longer be able to search individuals using section 44 powers. Instead, they will have to rely on section 43 powers – which require officers to reasonably suspect the person to be a terrorist.

And officers will only be able to use section 44 in relation to the searches of vehicles. I will only confirm these authorisations where they are considered to be necessary, and officers will only be able to use them when they have ‘reasonable suspicion’.

These interim measures will bring section 44 stop and search powers fully into line with the European Court’s judgment. They will provide operational clarity for the police. And they will last until we have completed our review of counter-terrorism laws.

Mr Speaker, the first duty of government is to protect the public. But that duty must never be used as a reason to ride roughshod over our civil liberties. I believe that the interim proposals I have set out today give the police the support they need and protect those ancient rights.

I commend this statement to the House.

A statement from the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau

Following today’s statement by the Home Secretary in relation to new guidelines around the use of stop and search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 the Metropolitan Police Service will not seek to renew the current authorisation to use the power at this stage.

The current authority expires at 23.59 hours tonight (Thursday 8 July) and Metropolitan Police officers will not use the power after this time until further notice.

Public safety remains our top priority and we will continue to use all other powers available to us to keep London a hostile environment for terrorists.

Police officers continue to have the power to stop and search anyone who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act.

We will continue to work closely with the Home Office and other police forces throughout the ongoing review of CT legislation.

The World Tonight – BBC Radio 4 (Starts at 27m 37s)

Rules on stop and search changed – BBC News

Anti-terror stop and search powers to be scrapped – The Guardian

Section 44 is dead, says Home Office – British Journal of Photography

Stop-and-search criteria tightened – Press Association

Images © Jonathan Warren, Jess Hurd & Marc Vallée 2010

Photos

• PHNAT Victory Flashmob 4 July – Kevin Blowe/Copwatcher
• Photographer NOT a Terrorist – Dave Nash/GnasherUK
• Victory Flashmob – Section 44 is Dead! – Mike Hellers
• Victory Flashmob – Section 44 is Dead! - David Mery/acrostich
• PHANT Victory flashmob – Tim Brechin/the-tick
• PNAT victory flashmob - Louise Whittle/HarpyMarx
• S44 flashmob – Rudy Cech

Reports

Photographers ‘flashmob’ Scotland Yard over terrorism law – Amateur Photographer

A security guard attempts to stop a picture being taken in George Yard in the City of London. Photo: Grant Smith © 2009

Last week the Independent ran a front page story about the police harassing photographers using Terrorism laws, others soon picked up the story and the day after Head of ACPO Media Advisory Andy Trotter was on the BBC Breakfast sofa with the Independent journalist who had been stopped & searched. He was forced to admit defeat and issued new guidelines to ACPO Chief Constables:

Section 44 Terrorism Act and Photography

Adverse media coverage of the police service use of Section 44 powers, when dealing with issues relating to photography, have recently hit the headlines again and suggests that officers continue to misuse the legislation that is available to them. The evidence also suggests that there is confusion over the recording requirements of ‘Stop and Account’ and the actual police powers of ‘Stop and Search’. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the legislation and guidance in relation to these matters.

Stop and Search
Section 44 gives officers no specific powers in relation to photography and there is no provision in law for the confiscation of equipment or the destruction of images, either digital or on film.

On the rare occasion where an officer suspects that an individual is taking photographs as part of target reconnaissance for terrorist purposes, then they should be treated as a terrorist suspect and dealt with under Section 43 of the Act. This would ensure that the legal power exists to seize equipment and recover images taken. Section 58A Counter Terrorism Act 2008 provides powers to cover instances where photographs are being taken of police officers who are, or who have been, employed at the front line of counter terrorism operations.

These scenarios will be exceptionally rare events and do not cover instances of photography by rail enthusiasts, tourists or the media.

The ACPO/NPIA Practice Advice, published in December 2008, is again included with this letter and specifically covers the issues surrounding photography. The guidance also includes the need for clear briefings on the use of Section 44 and it may be appropriate to include photography issues within those briefings.

Stop and Account
Encounters between police officers and PCSOs and the public range from general conversation through to arrest. Officers need to be absolutely clear that no record needs to be submitted to cover any activity that merely constitutes a conversation.

Only at the point where a member of the public is asked to account for their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of an item, do the provisions of the PACE Act apply and a record for that ‘stop and account’ need to be submitted. Even at that point, such a discussion does not constitute the use of any police power and should not be recorded under the auspices of the Terrorism Act, for example.

Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Trotter OBE QPM
Chief Constable
Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group

Yet days later Architectural Photographer Grant Smith was Stopped & Searched in London after he refused to give his name (which he is perfectly within his rights to do) while photographing a church. He’s sent us this after it happened:

On a beautiful sunny day in London I was taking photographs of Wren’s steeple at the ruined Christ church, Newgate, which adjoins the building occupied by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch.

After about 20 minutes of taking photos, a security guard approached asking for ID and the purpose of photography. I refused to give any details. Shortly after a suited head of security came out to ask me the same questions under the pretence of ‘hostile reconnaissance’ . Again I refused. I had no obligation to provide corporate security guards any of this information as I was in a public space.

I moved away from the building, under the constant surveillance of the guard, and crossed the road to get a wider shot.

I was then approached by a PCSO who crossed the road and asked what me what was I doing, again I declined to give any information. He responded that if an ‘incident takes place, like a bomb going of,f in the near future and I hadn’t questioned you, I wouldn’t be doing my job properly.’

After his departure I heard police sirens coming from the east and west. and watched in stunned amazement as 3 police cars and a riot van arrived, all with flashing lights. They pulled up outside the entrance where the guard had approached me. 3 of them marched toward me and said they were responding to an ‘incident’. Apparently there was ‘…an aggressive male who had been in reception of the building taking photographs of the staff, and who refused to leave’.

I argued this with the police officer, saying that this was wrong. I was not in the building reception, I was not photographing staff, nor had I been asked to leave.
I was asked by police what I was doing and it was obvious I was taking photographs, but I initially declined to give any further information. During this questioning, one of the police officers was admiring my camera, and commented amusingly on my ‘I’m a photographer, not a terrorist’ badge.

My camera bag was searched for terrorist related paraphernalia (notebooks and maps I assume), despite my lame protestations.

The police officer again asked for my details as he produced his stop search form. When I said that I was not obliged to give the details, he said I would be physically searched, which did not sound like a very pleasant experience. So I gave my details and was not detained any longer.

All of this was because I declined to be bullied or intimidated by a security officer, who now have what appears to be the full backing of the police in their assessment of photographers.

Grant has been interviewed by ITV London Tonight and More4 News about the incident: