We are 'heroes,' says police chief whose force frisked a photographer

Brit plod used Terrorism Act to collar snapper. Hello, 2005


The chief constable of Sussex Police has labelled his staff “everyday heroes” for using the UK's Terrorism Act to stop and search a photographer taking pictures of Hove Town Hall.

Professional snapper Eddie Mitchell was detained for an hour by police in the south coast town on Thursday (May 4). A police employee who was not a sworn constable* decided, according to Mitchell’s detailed account, to demand an explanation of what he was doing while he was taking “general view” photos of the town hall.

Mitchell, who has worked in the area for 18 years and supplies pictures to national newspapers, agencies and the BBC, refused to answer the woman’s questions as she waved a Sussex Police lanyard and ID card in his face.

He did, however, agree to go with her into the town hall, where police have a “pop-up station.” Two constables searched him, citing Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The relevant parts state:

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(2) A constable may search a person arrested under Section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

“They were in a corner because they had to let me go seeing as I hadn’t done anything – and they were so stuck they took a total abuse of power by quoting the Terror Act,” he told Daily Mail Online.

Police compound their blunder

Chief Superintendent Lisa Bell, divisional policing commander for Brighton and Hove, said: “I am satisfied that the action my officers took was completely appropriate when the threat level is at severe, meaning an attack is highly likely,” adding that if Mitchell had “identified himself” to the woman employee, “the matter would have been resolved in minutes.”

The Guardian reported: “Sussex Police were unable to answer questions on what, specifically, about Mitchell’s actions had provoked a reasonable suspicion that he was a terrorist and under what powers a member of its civilian staff had demanded an explanation and a statement from him.”

Following the public outcry at the police’s heavy-handed treatment of Mitchell, who insists he has the “utmost respect for Sussex Police and the work they do,” Chief Constable Giles York weighed in, obviously feeling the pressure.

“The terrorism risk nationally remains severe, and in view of recent events I expect my staff and the public to be vigilant and report unusual activity,” he said in a bizarre statement on the force website. “I totally support and am immensely proud of my officers and staff and I try really hard to recognise personally their ‘everyday heroism’.”

Breaking their own rules

The Association of Chief Police Officers, predecessor to today’s National Police Chiefs Council, issued a policy statement in 2010 after the routine abuse of police powers towards photographers became unignorable.

A letter by the chair of ACPO’s communication advisory group was issued to all police forces in the country, reminding policemen that instead of harassing photographers and misusing the law, they ought to be working with them. A copy of it can be found via the Lancashire and Cheshire Photographic Union’s website, and it says: “There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.”

This policy has remained in force ever since, including the rebranding of ACPO to the National Police Chiefs’ Council after Theresa May, as Home Secretary, ordered the organisation be shut down.

Sheffield University lecturer Mark Hanna, author of media law bible McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, said to us: "We all want the police to be vigilant. But ideally the Chief Constable would have admitted clearly that there was no ground ‘to reasonably suspect’ Eddie of being a terrorist, or explained what his officers felt that ground was. The Chief’s statement does not refer at all to the process his officers followed under the 2000 Act. Eddie conducted himself with dignity. The Chief’s statement is ‘flannel’.”

A spokesman for the I’m A Photographer Not A Terrorist campaign group told The Register: “The use of Section 43 of the Terrorism Act – a power requiring reasonable suspicion a person is a terrorist – to detain and search a photographer and view PACE protected journalistic material, is utterly bizarre. Taking photographs of a public building comes nowhere close to establishing ‘reasonable suspicion’ of terrorism.”

Eddie Mitchell has previously come into conflict with police while doing his job. Last year three constables arrested him while he was taking aerial footage of a fire in Surrey. The constables, having handcuffed him, then took it in turns to have a play with his still-airborne drone, which he had been flying at about 150 feet. Mitchell is a licensed drone operator who had the landowner’s permission to be operating there. ®

Bootnote

* Police constables of all ranks swear an oath that admits them into the office of constable. The term “constable” is a bit old-fashioned nowadays and is generally synonymous with “police officer.” Being a constable is what gives police extra legal powers that lets them freely do things normal members of the public would commit a criminal offence by doing, such as kicking down doors and arresting people, Tasering them, etc.

Many police employees are not constables and so do not have these powers, though in various situations they can acquire and exercise some of them. Two examples are police community support officers and police station detention officers, who process prisoners arrested by constables.

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Experts: AI should be recognized as inventors in patent law
    Plus: Police release deepfake of murdered teen in cold case, and more

    In-brief Governments around the world should pass intellectual property laws that grant rights to AI systems, two academics at the University of New South Wales in Australia argued.

    Alexandra George, and Toby Walsh, professors of law and AI, respectively, believe failing to recognize machines as inventors could have long-lasting impacts on economies and societies. 

    "If courts and governments decide that AI-made inventions cannot be patented, the implications could be huge," they wrote in a comment article published in Nature. "Funders and businesses would be less incentivized to pursue useful research using AI inventors when a return on their investment could be limited. Society could miss out on the development of worthwhile and life-saving inventions."

    Continue reading
  • Declassified and released: More secret files on US govt's emergency doomsday powers
    Nuke incoming? Quick break out the plans for rationing, censorship, property seizures, and more

    More papers describing the orders and messages the US President can issue in the event of apocalyptic crises, such as a devastating nuclear attack, have been declassified and released for all to see.

    These government files are part of a larger collection of records that discuss the nature, reach, and use of secret Presidential Emergency Action Documents: these are executive orders, announcements, and statements to Congress that are all ready to sign and send out as soon as a doomsday scenario occurs. PEADs are supposed to give America's commander-in-chief immediate extraordinary powers to overcome extraordinary events.

    PEADs have never been declassified or revealed before. They remain hush-hush, and their exact details are not publicly known.

    Continue reading
  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022