09 July 2008

Home Secretary says police can ban photography

In a letter to the National Union of Journalists, Jacqui Smith wrote

“It is for the local chief constable, in the case of your letter, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force to decide how his or her officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection,” Smith said.

However, a commentor on Boing Boing, Simon Bradshaw, made a good point when he wrote this (Entire comment reprinted because it is too important to excerpt.)

Actually, speaking as both a keen amateur photographer and someone qualified in English law, this is more useful than it may seem.

Firstly, we have confirmation in writing from the Home Secretary (i.e. the politician responsible for what in the US would be termed ‘homeland security’) that there is no law against photography in public places. That alone is helpful when faced with a jobsworth trying to tell you it’s illegal to take pictures without some sort of permission.

Secondly, although the Home Secretary states that police may implement local restrictions, she goes on to say that this is the decision of the regional force Chief Constable. Not part-time PCSO Smith. Or PC Plod. Or even the Inspector (US terms: Lt) running a local policing operation. Yes, the letter says that these people can make decisions on allowing photography – but it goes on to say that they have to be able to point to a policy set by their Chief Constable, not make it up as they go along.

And that helps, because at the level of decision-making a CC is meant to operate at, policy decisions should be based on a proper assessment of all the factors, including the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. So, if the policy is overly restrictive (e.g ‘no photography without a permit applied for a month ahead’) or too vague (‘entirely at the discretion of the local officer’) then it would be open to challenge through the courts.

Now, this is not an ideal situation. I would like a strong, positive presumption that photography is permitted unless there are very clear and overwhelming local circumstances against it. But for now the Home Secretary’s letter actually provides some useful ammunition for anyone threatened with legal consequences for public photography.