Can someone explain the law to me

[Southdowns]

*********

And I'm sure if you did you'd be fine!

That's no good; what'd be the point?

 

[gramps]

but if this had been my conversation it'd have gone more like:

Police officer: will you delete your photos
Me: Do I have to No.
Officer: If you dont then we will hold you further unil a proper invsigation has been processed and run it by xxxx which could be a couple of hours
Me: OK, lets go through them one by one and see which ones you want me to delete. I had not realised that I was under arrest - can you tell me when you arrested me, on what grounds you arrested me and why you failed to administer a caution when you made the silent arrest ... please also provide me with a telephone so that I can contact a solicitor. I will be making no further statement until I have spoken with the solicitor.

 

[Southdowns]

Yeah, I know, but it's not nearly so much fun!!!!!

I think my "OK, I'm leaving now……" option says pretty much the same thing

 

[gramps]

I think you would find that it would be a great deal of 'fun' once it got going!

 

[Byker28i]

Well done boogie for coming back and updating the thread. Let's hope that's put paid to comments such as attention seeking

 

[big soft moose]

This story makes me want to go to MK and start shooting as much as I can on public land!

good luck with finding some public land in MK - pretty much you are limited to the grid roads the highway side of the line of the streetlights and the roads and verges in the estates (and two council owned parks) The majority of the parks and the majority of grid road landscape is owned by the Parks Trust, and although they have no issue with non comercial photography (commercial photography will probably attract a fee) this is not public land per se

In the centre , where hoogle was , the only public land is the highway and central median on avebury, midsummer, and silbury boulevards, and the cross streets and if you try shooting from there you'll probably get done for obstructing the traffic or moved on for your own safety

The pavements imediately outside the centre are owned by the centre Mk, and the parking spaces outside are owned by english partnerships , and may or may not be let to the centre depending on exactly where you are. The Market square is also owned by EP and let to the centre.

In short theres no problem with standing up for your rights on public land, but do make sure you are actually on public land before you try it , and in MK its not as simple as it is in most towns

That said I lived in MK for 5 years and I wandered arround most of it witha DSLR without a problem - it probably helped that i was known to the police (in a good way)

 

[asphotographymk]

Pete, You would however be granted the same rights on this land as it is public by the right of access.

 

[big soft moose]

Pete, You would however be granted the same rights on this land as it is public by the right of access.

which land in particluar are you reffering to - most of it is open by permission rather than right, and even if it wasnt that wouldnt necessarily apply - public rights of way (of which there are only a couple on MK - most of the footpaths and bridleways were extinguished when MKDC was set up , the redways and leisure routes are permissive) only confer the right to freely pass and repass not the right to take photos as you are still on privately owned land

 

[Pegasus2]

1 - I am a law abiding Citizen and honestly did not believe I was doing anything wrong so was more than happy to help out and answer questions.

2 - So yes a lot of it is my own fault for volounteering however as I did Volounteer and cooperated with them fully I should have been treated better.

3 - Before my interview had started I was offered representation but yet again I still believed I had done nothing wrong so felt like I did not need it.

Those pitfalls are some of the biggest an innocent person can make. I can't tell you how dangerous the above three things are but i'm sure you understand now.

Unfortunatly, telling the truth and being a law abiding citizen can get you into a lot of hot water very quickly.

If you're ever cautioned by police 'You have the right... etc" Keep silent and say nothing without a solicitor present.

Also the No#1 rule when dealing with police, never, ever volunteer any infomation. If you must speak, yes and no only.

I'm genuinly sorry you went through such a crap experiance and you sould not be apologising or suggesting your fault in any manner whatsoever. That response what entirely unwarrented and a waste of police resorces.

 

[big soft moose]

I agree with the former point, if you are arrested exercise your right to a solicitor , but the latter point (rule 1) is bonkers and quite franklly one of the better ways to get arrested by antagonising officers by being an uncooperative twit

 

[Bernie174]

Pegasus
You should be careful with advice that may get you into trouble, rather than out of it.
The the bit you missed out says "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court......"
So being aksed about something, and declining to answer can make any defence you use later weaker. The reasoning being that if you are innocent, why not explain things when you're asked, rather than later? Of course if your guilty, it makes no difference, and the delay in answering is so that you can think up some excuses, or have a solicitor suggest them to you.
I've lost count of the number of times, that solicitors (albeit under the old system), told thier client to say nothing, and as a result thier client ended up charged and in court, simply because they didn't say something which either disprove evidence or provide a defence for them. A few of those I knew dammed well were innocent, but they found themselves convicted.
As for your rule one, it's not going to help you, really it's not. I've always been co operative and had no problem, I've had people try your rule with me and watched them do it to other police officers, all that happens is it draws matters out. Still, if you want to waste your time thats your affair.

 

[DemiLion]

few of those I knew dammed well were innocent, but they found themselves convicted.

If you were an officer involved in the case, that's a truly astonishing statement, and comes close to perverting the course of justice!

 

[big soft moose]

If you were an officer involved in the case, that's a truly astonishing statement, and comes close to perverting the course of justice!

indeed - if you (bernie) knew damn well they were inocent why were they charged ?

 

[odd jim]

indeed - if you (bernie) knew damn well they were inocent why were they charged ?

It's not up to the officer in the case if they are charged. It used to be down to the custody sergeant or now (except in extremely minor cases) to the CPS. All the officer in the case does is gather the evidence, interpret it in accordance with the law and put the file together for someone else to make a decision. Unfortunately, prosecutors have a habit of then making the case and the law meet their own ends.

Defence lawyers and barristers are known to 'embellish' aspects, but unfortunately I have seem prosecution barristers come out with outrageous allegations that arnt supported by case evidence.

 

[DemiLion]

It's not up to the officer in the case if they are charged. It used to be down to the custody sergeant or now (except in extremely minor cases) to the CPS. All the officer in the case does is gather the evidence, interpret it in accordance with the law and put the file together for someone else to make a decision. Unfortunately, prosecutors have a habit of then making the case and the law meet their own ends.

Defence lawyers and barristers are known to 'embellish' aspects, but unfortunately I have seem prosecution barristers come out with outrageous allegations that arnt supported by case evidence.

Apart from one icky little point...


If you've taken the stand as a witness knowing that the bod is innocent, and failed to mention it, then you've committed perjury as well as perverted the course etc.

It's all down to this little statement:

"I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

 

[odd jim]

Apart from one icky little point...

If you've taken the stand as a witness knowing that the bod is innocent, and failed to mention it, then you've committed perjury as well as perverted the course etc.

It's all down to this little statement:

Yes but who said anything about being a witness?

 

[simonblue]

As a young man,i worked as a barristers clerk for a while,let just say the the law can be very strange at times

 

[Donnie]

Can I just clarify that Pegasus did NOT say be uncooperative, but said if you answer to only say yes or no, I think he's trying to say keep it simple i.e. Yes / No not, yes officer but you see I think that when the person did that he should have...... or some other embellishment.

 

[big soft moose]

yeah but answering only yes or no is being uncooperative if they are asking a more substansive question. Point being that while its true you should avoid saying anything that would incriminate yourself or give grounds for suspicion, being an uncooperative pillock is also grounds for suspicion.

I'd suggest that if routinely stopped by the police the best bet is to be cooperative and pleasant, as that is the route least likely to lead you into trouble. By all means stand by your rights but

a) know what they are ( I usually carry a copy of the ACPO letter with me)

b) be sure that you are correct (like don't try to insist you have the right to take pictures because you are on public land if the land you are on is privately owned )

and c) do so assertively but pleasantly - coming across as a know it all who's looking for a confrontation will not help the situation

 

[gramps]

Yes but who said anything about being a witness?

Why weren't you a witness if you knew the individual was innocent?

yeah but answering only yes or no is being uncooperative if they are asking a more substansive question. Point being that while its true you should avoid saying anything that would incriminate yourself or give grounds for suspicion, being an uncooperative pillock is also grounds for suspicion.

I would suggest that 'being cooperative' led the o/p to a great deal of inconvenience, including being detained at a police station, being subjected to coercion and losing the images he had lawfully obtained through his photography.
There is no obligation to assist a police officer to carry out an act that in itself he/she has no authority to carry out or to comply with a request that he/she has no authority to make.

 

[odd jim]

****Why weren't you a witness if you knew the individual was innocent?*****

I would suggest that 'being cooperative' led the o/p to a great deal of inconvenience, including being detained at a police station, being subjected to coercion and losing the images he had lawfully obtained through his photography.
There is no obligation to assist a police officer to carry out an act that in itself he/she has no authority to carry out or to comply with a request that he/she has no authority to make.

By reviewing the evidence impartially and knowing the case inside out.

 

[big soft moose]

I would suggest that 'being cooperative' led the o/p to a great deal of inconvenience, including being detained at a police station, being subjected to coercion and losing the images he had lawfully obtained through his photography.
There is no obligation to assist a police officer to carry out an act that in itself he/she has no authority to carry out or to comply with a request that he/she has no authority to make.

true but theres a difference between cooperating at first approach ,and going voluntary to a police station and waiving your right to representation etc, I was refering to the issue raised by pegasus rather than the OP

the point i was making was that only answering yes or no and being uncooperative it tantamount to antagonising the officers and asking to be arrested.

In the OPs position I would have asked them to clarify whether i was free to leave and if not whether I was under arrest ? , if so for what ? , and why I had not been advised of my rights ? - After that If i was under arrest I would have refused to make any further statement until I had consulted a solicitor.

One point that hasnt been clarified however is whether hoogle was indeed on public land (In MK its unlikely) and if not whether he had previously been asked to stop shooting by representatives of the owner. - If he had then although the police still don't have the right to delete them , its hard to get excited about the images being lawfully obtained as you don't have the right to take photos on private land against the wishes of the owner, and if you refuse to stop when asked its reasonable for the owner to call the police.

 

[gramps]

the point i was making was that only answering yes or no and being uncooperative it tantamount to antagonising the officers and asking to be arrested.

Whilst I understand what you are saying, there is no offence of 'antagonising a police officer' and unless there is clear and justifiable reason to believe that an offence has been or is about to be committed, there is no question of 'asking to be arrested'.
The police have extensive powers and when those powers are abused they should be brought to account, not assisted in their abuse by those targeted having to be 'compliant'.

I would suggest that the average tog going about his business/hobby will never be in a situation to give rise to justifiable suspicion of committing an arrestable offence and therefore I cannot see a situation where extensive conversation would be required to justify what they are doing.

Reasonable cooperation is one thing, cooperating with the abuse of power is quite another.

 

[big soft moose]

While its true that there is no offence of 'antagonising a police officer' , they can usually find something to do you for if you set out to antagonise them (favourites would be things like obstruction - particularly for people using tripods in a public place, plus if you are seriously mouthy with them theres potential for things like breach of the peace type offences.)

Theres also the issue that if you are on private land and refusing to leave when told they can escort you off the premises, and if you refuse to go quietly that can become an arrestable situation

My main point however is that in general theres no point in creating a confrontation where none exists. Most (although admittedly not all - every proffesion has its bad apples) police are reasonable people doing a difficult job and they have no interest in wasting time arresting you, taking you down the station, and doing all the ensuing paperwork unless you give them a reason to do so.

In the OPs case this should never have become a matter for the police, had he avoided taking photo's on private land without permission in the first place this would never have come up.

 

[DemiLion]

Whilst I understand what you are saying, there is no offence of 'antagonising a police officer' ...

Actually there sort of is...

It comes under the Police Act 1996 (Sect 89, 2) Obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/part/V

 

[gramps]

In the OPs case this should never have become a matter for the police, had he avoided taking photo's on private land without permission in the first place this would never have come up.

Whilst that is true, and in no way wishing to appear antagonistic, assuming that the account he gave was true, it was not a matter for the police anyway ... before we even go down the route of being 'detained' without arrest and improperly deleting images from the camera.

As far as I can see it he was not confrontational with either the security guards or the police and neither does it appear that it was a case of he refused to leave when asked ... it appears he was pounced on for having a large camera (as opposed to those around him with smaller cameras!) and was then swept along by a process that appears to have been extreme and unprofessional.

 

[jerry12953]

Look, the truth is that if certain police "officers" want to aggravate an innocent person, photographer or otherwise, they have all the power they need to do it. It may not be legal but 99.9% of the time they will get away with it, because the victim has no power at all, or does not want to create a fuss, or - if it ever gets to court - the police will be found not guilty of any charges.

It may well be a small percentage of "officers" (bad eggs) who would wish to do this, but there enough of them out there to make it a significant number.

I know. I've been there. And I have NEVER forgotten my experience.

 

[DemiLion]

As far as I can see it he was not confrontational with either the security guards or the police and neither does it appear that it was a case of he refused to leave when asked ... it appears he was pounced on for having a large camera (as opposed to those around him with smaller cameras!) and was then swept along by a process that appears to have been extreme and unprofessional.

Agreed, but a point that has only been glossed over so far is the 'Royal visit' which may have got the OB jumpy.

Although how HRH Prince Andrew popping in to various businesses in the vague MK area will have affected their procedure in the shopping centre baffles me - he didn't go anywhere near it!

 

[big soft moose]

Look, the truth is that if certain police "officers" want to aggravate an innocent person, photographer or otherwise, they have all the power they need to do it. It may not be legal but 99.9% of the time they will get away with it, because the victim has no power at all, or does not want to create a fuss, or - if it ever gets to court - the police will be found not guilty of any charges.

It may well be a small percentage of "officers" (bad eggs) who would wish to do this, but there enough of them out there to make it a significant number.

I know. I've been there. And I have NEVER forgotten my experience.

of course equally there are a number of cases (and I am not suggesting that either you or the OP fall into this category) of 'photographers' going out of their way to agravate security guards and police officers in order to get their 15 seconds of 'fame' on youtube.

 

[HMansfield]

Agreed, but a point that has only been glossed over so far is the 'Royal visit' which may have got the OB jumpy.

Although how HRH Prince Andrew popping in to various businesses in the vague MK area will have affected their procedure in the shopping centre baffles me - he didn't go anywhere near it!

If there was a Royal visitor (or indeed, any celebrity or public figure), there would be an expectation of people wanting to take photo's. If the owners/management are adamant that no photo's are to be taken, then they need to have signs clearly displaying this.

If there are others being allowed to take photo's nearby, then photography is clearly not forbidden, and it would imply that this was a case of security throwing their weight around.
Alternatively, photography is forbidden, and the security weren't doing their job properly.

 

[big soft moose]

At the centre MK, Proffesional/commercial photography is by permit only - what seems to have happened here is that the OP has been considered to be proffesional because of having a big fancy camera whiled those using compacts and phones have been ignored.

why the police were called remains to be seen

 

[HMansfield]

It's a bit of a b****r of a situation to be in.

"Who are you working for?"
"Nobody, I'm an amateur"
"Can you prove that?"

Well, no. Funnily enough, companies don't give out ID to people that don't work for them, stating that they don't work for them.

 

[odd jim]

I'm still confused as to why they apparently arrived on blues and twos?!

 

[gramps]

Actually there sort of is...

It comes under the Police Act 1996 (Sect 89, 2) Obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/part/V

No! and again no! ... this would only fit if the officer was 'in the execution of their duty' ... clearly not in the circumstances with the o/p and unless and until there are 'reasonable grounds' ...... then again, not applicable.
The law does not give the right to a police officer to act like a fool or a dictator.
Yes lots of things happen that shouldn't but that does not mean it is lawful, honourable or decent. To pretend that an officer can arrest or detain you or me on a whim because he/she doesn't like the way we look/talk/don't talk/move fast enough, is unacceptable and should be upheld by all lawful citizens as being just that ... unacceptable.

 

[big soft moose]

I used to know a number of cops in MK who like to roll on blues and twos at every possible opportunity,

 

[big soft moose]

No! and again no! ... this would only fit if the officer was 'in the execution of their duty' ... clearly not in the circumstances with the o/p and unless and until there are 'reasonable grounds' ...... then again, not applicable.

for about the 15th time we are talking about the statement made by pegasus that you should never cooperate with the police and only give yes or no answers - not the OP :bang:

I said doing that would antagonise officers unecessarily

you said there was no such crime as antagoinising a police officer

and demi pointed out that actually there is,refusing to cooperate in this manner is (or at least could be) obstructing an officer in the course of his duties.

Neither of us have at any time suggested the the OP was deliberately antagonistic or that he was obstructing the police in question.

 

[Hoogle]

I am just putting it down to being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

And to answer another question that incident was the first time I was made aware I was not allowed to photograph there without permission or a waiver, So no one had come up to me and warned me against the rule I was breaking.

I was in Mk yesterday and without my camera I did notice a small sign at the door of Xscape saying no photography was allowed. However this seems to only apply to people with DSLRs because when I was walking around there I could not help but notice the ammount of people taking pictures etc and security not batting an eye lid.

This to me portrays the image of if you invest in your hobby and have a nice DSLR your not allowed to use it in the vacinity of the shopping center

If you have a 40 MP compact or mobile phone then feel free to use it as much as you like.

Scenario: If I was a terrorist would I be making myself stand out with a big "Pro Camera" Or would I be using a decent Mp Mobile phone camera which I could automatically send the pictures to whoever I wanted at a touch of a button to anyone anywhere in the world via Multimedia messaging.


The truth is Guys Amateur photographer, Hobbiest Photographer, COmmercial Photographer or Proffessional photographer. To a none Photographer or anyone without Knowledge of who we are then no matter what we really are we are all seen as the same. Nice big camera must be PRO or Commercial.

As other people have said I believe in maintaing a secure enviroment for everyone and if I raise suspicion in any way I would prefer for security to either come and question me or just say Sorry your not allowed to take photos here and advise me where I can take them or who I could see to get permission.

If the following steps were taken I would not have put up a fight rules are rules and I am always willing to follow them so I would have just packed my stuff up and moved on etc.

But my first knowledge that I was doing something wrong was when I was in the deserted car park with about 4 or 5 cars there and the police come at me with lights flashing Very ott for being in a deserted car park and shortly followed by security guards from Xscape in a golf buggy style vehicle.

Even after my experience I will always cooperate If I am in this situation again and have been since howeve the police officers were very friendly and chatty.

I am sure I just got the wrong officer at that time Or maybe they may have had suspicion I was using stolen equipment but it never checked out that way so instead of saying that they tried covering it up with other BS.

If I am ever questioned in connection to stolen equipment I will always help out as much as possible because I would always want a fellow togger to recover there equipment.

So who knows maybe there was an underlying reason for all the drama or maybe it was just a load of drama over nothing.

I would however reccomend you respect the law and cooperate and dont go looking for trouble as I am sure if I didnt cooperate I would have been a lot worse off.

But yet I would like to request the Law follow the statement Innocent until proven Guilty.

we could have saved a lot of time, effort and police resources if they just said what you upto, are you aware your not allowed to photograph here, Can you please delete your images and then 5 mins later all of on our merry way. If they have the right to do that or not does not bother me If I was asked I would do it.

Just like you wouldnt photograph someone in the street without there permission and if you did and they ask you to delete it I am sure you would I guess this theory works with private land as well.

Thanks for taking interest in my thread however I never meant for it to lead to a toggers vs cops thread. I respect the police and what they do I just feel sometimes If you were in an alley and by your side was a junkie causing trouble and you were photographing the architecture the police would come and deal with you first as your easier work.

This is not always the case but sure feels like it sometimes.

 

[HMansfield]

The truth is Guys Amateur photographer, Hobbiest Photographer, Commercial Photographer or Proffessional photographer. To a none Photographer or anyone without Knowledge of who we are then no matter what we really are we are all seen as the same. Nice big camera must be PRO or Commercial paedophile or terrorist.

 

[gramps]

But you are suggesting that 'being cooperative' is necessary to avoid being arrested etc; I am saying that legally it isn't, there is no offence of antagonising a police officer whatever demi says ... the law is clear as to what powers an officer has.
A simple Yes or No in answer to questions is perfectly reasonable, in fact if no offence has been committed or if there is no reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed then it is actually going above and beyond and certainly does not amount to obstructing an officer in the execution of his duty!
Indeed it could be argued that by persisting in going above and beyond his/her duty a police officer could be the cause of a breach of the peace!

The subject under discussion is taking photographs in a private place, none of which should be the concern of the police, if required the photographer can be asked to desist by the owners, if he refuses he effectively is trespassing ... a civil matter.

 

[big soft moose]

But you are suggesting that 'being cooperative' is necessary to avoid being arrested etc;

No I am saying that being deliberately uncooperative, obstructive and antagonistic is a good way to get yourself arrested (not that i'm suggesting that the OP was any of those) - this is as i said in response to what pegasus said about never being helpful to the police

The subject under discussion is taking photographs in a private place, none of which should be the concern of the police, if required the photographer can be asked to desist by the owners, if he refuses he effectively is trespassing ... a civil matter.

In actual fact he is already trespassing if he is taking photo's where he isnt allowed - if he refuses to desist when asked the owner is within his rights to call the police for assistance in removing the trespasser from the premises. If the tresppaser resists such removal it can become a matter of agravated trespass which is an arrestable offence

In Hoogles case it isnt clear why the police were called , as usually I would expect the centre Mk security guards to make the first approach. I can only speculate that a member of the public contacted the police directly and reported someone 'behaving suspiciously' which would also explain the blues and twos arival.

But the bottom line is that we are all only guessing - only the police know for sure why they were called (assuming that hoogle doesnt have a copy of any arrest paperwork as he wasn't "arrested")