Police detains photographer under anti-terror laws for photographing Hove town hall
May 5, 2017
Dunja Đuđić
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Share:
On Thursday, March 4, police detained professional photographer Eddie Mitchell for taking photos of Hove town hall in Sussex. The officers approached him and searched him under section 43 of the Terrorism Act, which gives officers the power to stop and search anyone they “reasonably suspects to be a terrorist.”
As the police confirm, they approached Mitchell while he was taking the photos. They searched him because he refused to provide identification and information. At the same time, Mitchel believes he didn’t break any laws, which is why he refused to identify himself and give more information to the officers.
The whole incident lasted for an hour. Mitchell explains that “the police didn’t want to back down and neither did [he].” He says that he just wanted to stand his ground. What’s more, the police were unable to answer what exactly caused them to believe Mitchel was a terrorist. As he, indeed, didn’t break any laws and still was searched under the anti-terror law, he claims that the police have abused their power:
“I respect wholeheartedly that the police have a job to do, but there should be clarity on people taking pictures in a public place – it is not a crime … As far as I am concerned, it is a total misuse and abuse of power.”
Despite the long-lasting arguing, both the photographer and the officers agreed that the conversation wasn’t antagonistic. The chief superintendent of Sussex police, Lisa Bell, defends the officers. According to her, the actions like this are completely appropriate when the threat level is severe. She adds that everything could have been resolved in minutes if the photographer had identified himself. On the other hand, Mitchell claims that his identity was quickly confirmed from his BBC pass and a credit card.
I’m not familiar with the specifics of the UK law. But generally speaking, I know you can photograph almost anything you want as long as you’re in the public place. However, with such a great concern about terrorism, I can understand that the security is increased and that the police are checking photographers more than usual.
This is not the first time for Mitchell to get in trouble because of his job. You may remember that he was arrested while taking aerial photographs of a burning building. The police officer took the control from Mitchell’s hands, landed the drone and damaged the gear on the way. So I kinda understand his resentment. But although he didn’t break the law, I believe he could have simply been more understanding towards the global situation. In case the officers weren’t rude, he probably should have just explained what he was doing and end it all. On the other hand, I’m sure that the police had better things to do than search a photographer and argue with him for an hour. Once they realized he was a BBC photographer, they also could have backed off.
What do you think? Is it reasonable that the police checks on photographers more thoroughly when the threat of terrorism is high? Or they should have left him alone because, in fact, he didn’t break the law?
[via The Guardian]
Dunja Đuđić
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Related Posts
Here is the one thing you should say if police detains you for photographing
Police tells attorney he can’t film them, Police Chief invites citizens to film the police in response
Kids under 16 will need parental consent to use Instagram, Flickr under new EU laws
Atlanta Police Department Sanctioned for Obstructing Filming and Photographing Police Conduct
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
25 responses to “Police detains photographer under anti-terror laws for photographing Hove town hall”
There’s a really big issue in the UK right now about the police using new anti-terror legislation, the Investigatory Powers Act, against journalists – not what the legislation was presented as. The UN is due to consider a report from Reporters Without Borders about abuses of the powers, which have also resulted in the UK dropping to 40th out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index. As always, those who believe the police should be allowed to do whatever they want use the line ‘if had complied, this would’ve been sorted out,” and try to use the ‘terror’ threat to justify actions which are clearly not relevant. But people shouldn’t be forced to comply when the law is being abused. This case is particularly ludicrous as photographs of the building in question are freely available online from many official sources and the photographer was acting entirely within his rights.
“This case is particularly ludicrous as photographs of the building in question are freely available online from many official sources” -> I completely agree with this. I was browsing through the images online and saw there are many photos of the building available.
But still, I understand the increased security, considering the situation with terrorism in the world. That’s the only reason why I think Mitchell should have just briefly explained what he was doing right after the officers approached. And if they didn’t leave him alone after that – now, that’s a different story. In such case, he could probably file a lawsuit.
It’s hard to judge without a context and without knowing how they all behaved in the given situation. I can just assume what I would do in his place and approached by UK officers (it would be much different with the police where I live). But whatever the context was – I still believe he did nothing wrong and didn’t break the law, just like you.
In front of a German police car!?!
It’s just for the illustrative purposes.
Funny comment, though. :)
Well, until Brexit finishes, the Bavarian police have a very wide remit.
Or perhaps that was a stock image used because stories on photo websites need photos.
One of those.
8-)
Well, few years ago in UK… Police officer came to me when I was shooting “underground” line above the street (line between Heathrow airport and London center). I just explain what I’m shooting and why and that was it. It took us about 2 minutes with calm voices and no problem at all.
I don’t know why I was interesting to the police officer, but why cause troubles when the situation can be handled in few minutes?
I did a small shoot in front of Canary Wharf when I was in college and a security guard came over to ask what we were doing. Nothing came of it but we do need to be careful with places we’re taking photos of they’re govt owned/important places.
In the UK you can photograph what you want when stood on a public space. That said, you’d be ill advised to point your camera at anything sensitive without good reason. And why would Eddie not give his name and reason for taking the picture. He is just wasting police time; and his own. Grow up Eddie. If you want
a moral crusade go find a better cause and, meanwhile be thankful of being able to photograph freely in the UK
It was the police that wasted their own time, would a terrorist be taking pics in a way that drew attention? How many terrorist attacks have resulted from those involved taking pics before the event with a pro DSLR, what was it that made them come to the conclusion that he was a threat, they could not come up with an answer, also if you give your details to police you have no idea where they will end up or be passed onto or sold onto, I have experienced this first hand after an accident. Unless you break the law you have every right to withhold your details.
If they have genuine suspicions, then it’s justified. Too often photographers are a soft target used to make it look like they’re doing something, and feeding people’s paranoia about photographers in the process.
I was taking a picture in down town charlotte of a model from the the street and was told if I didn’t stop I would be arrested. I showed I was a college student and my assignment. Come to find out apparently architects don’t want you to make money off their building design.
You can shoot as long as you’re in the street. But yeah, you won’t be able to sell pictures of buildings as they’ll hunt ya down. Well at least big recognizable buildings.
is was the town hall, not a military base! WTF! They’re taking this too far. I couldn’t even get photos of the super moon last year over the water,because even though I was taking photos of the moon over the water, and no part of the harbor, I wasn’t allowed.
North Korea now in the UK.
This is in Great Britain. Different country, different laws…
but an imam preaching jihad in the street gets police protection…
Right!!! Makes no sense!
…to put it bluntly, the prospect of terrorism in today’s world in no way justifies the extended authority given to the state – Governments could be saving countless more lives by cracking down on road safety, automobile regulations, etc., etc.. This obsessive grab of power by governments and police services will be the ruin of free and democratic western society… have we learnt nothing from history!
Abuse of power.
My limited understanding of U.K. Police is that like American cops they oftentimes overstep boundaries using anti terror laws . Only thing is the U.K. I believe can detain you seven days before charging you . God save the queen
I’m sorry but how does photographing a building in any way affect security? I’m pretty sure that terrorists know about telephoto lens or stealthy ways to take pictures.
or google maps
Scandalous, this happened in a way to me, there was a serious road accident near where I live and hundreds of people on the street with phones taking pictures and videos, I turned up with my camera on a tripod and was challenged what I was doing, why no-one else? I showed them Air Ambulance volunteer ID and said was getting footage for website so they backed off when I said that and was careful not to get any images of the injured. When I moved to the location the Air Ambulance landed in the local park the same happened again many others there filming the helicopter? The Police don’t like seeing people with proper cameras doing a professional job so overstep the mark when they have no reason to, one is not a terrorist because one has a camera, if one is then tens of millions of people in this country are.
Should he just give the ID ? yes and no. No because he doesnt have to and the police cannot FORCE him to ID himself if he didnt break any law. yes if he did would not escalated BUT LEGALLY, he doesnt have to show ID and the police did not have any grounds to perform a search on him or demand ID.
I was taking photos outside and around Buckingham Palace, and I was approached by several armed police. They asked what I was doing, who I worked for and why I was taking so many photos. I explained that I was just taking photos, showed them ID, within minutes I was left alone. It doesn’t take much just to answer a few question, stay calm and be in your way! People make too much of an issue, especially when security is heightened due to terrorism!