Man Handled for taking a photograph

[Coldeh]

Can I suggest that before you start handing out such 'authoritative' advice, you actually go to some lengths to understand what 'The Law' actually says?

As just one example, the highlighted part above is complete bunkham; the rest is pretty much tosh as well.

Assault is a summary (petty) offence and is not actually defined in statute (law). It is mentioned under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but that solidifies it's status as a summary offence.

From case law, assault is considered to occur when there is the apprehension that force will be used to cause physical contact or injury. Of course, physical contact could be the shaking of a hand, so there enters the reasonable part present in so many of our laws.

 

[Byker28i]

Harrassment, alarm or distress?
The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

Trouble is - that could cover both parties.

 

[jamesb84]

Harrassment, alarm or distress?
The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

Trouble is - that could cover both parties.

The argument there could conceivably be that the security guards could be guilty of a section 5 offence in that the OP's daughter would have been alarmed by their behaviour, but that she would not reasonably be alarmed by the behaviour of her father in that she would consider it to be justified.

The defence (a) is not valid here as the OP's daughter was present alongside him. Neither (b) or (c) could be argued to be valid either.

 

[Tricky01]

Mini-meet at Greenwich anyone?

Now there's a plan, telephotos to the ready troops!

 

[john182rs]

Now there's a plan, telephotos to the ready troops!

This is what im thinking, can you imagine 20 or more people turning up with telephoto lenses on the cameras taking pictures and moving around abit.
Would keep the so called security people on their toes.

Does the OP have a road name that he was on to where this was all being filmed, just to google it all and pick a high spot to take pictures from going over the fence?

 

[joescrivens]

This is what im thinking, can you imagine 20 or more people turning up with telephoto lenses on the cameras taking pictures and moving around abit.
Would keep the so called security people on their toes.

Does the OP have a road name that he was on to where this was all being filmed, just to google it all and pick a high spot to take pictures from going over the fence?

20 people with telephoto lenses at a filming site .... bet that's never happened before

it's called the paparazzi!

 

[Byker28i]

The sun have reported today that Depp takes the ferry to the filming everyday

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...boat-to-Pirates-Of-The-Caribbean-filming.html

 

[john182rs]

20 people with telephoto lenses at a filming site .... bet that's never happened before

it's called the paparazzi!

Its not then, Well i never knew that paparazzi's were real. :shrug:

How about another TP meet around there.

 

[unclened]

OP should have told the inbred gorillas that its a film camera and you cannot delete any images, nor do they have the right to ask you to destroy the film. Knowing the intelect of these butt munchers the closest they probably ever came to a camera is posing infront of the mirror with an iphone.

 

[TinaC]

As to the OP, no pictures of the bullying guards? It's the first thing I'd have taken even if just their backs.

Me too :nuts:

 

[Tringa]

DemiLion,

Other than the first three sentences of the the part my post you have quoted, I don't think I was handing out 'authoritative' advice.

The rest was my opinion, which is why I used phrases like, "To me this appears", "I think", "I reckon", "I'd suggest".


But I did have a look at the law -

Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act

i)An offence of common assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

ii)An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. (Archbold 19-166 and 19-172)

iii)A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another. (Archbold 19-166a and 19-174 to 19-175).

 

[odd jim]

Assault is a summary (petty) offence and is not actually defined in statute (law). It is mentioned under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but that solidifies it's status as a summary offence.

From case law, assault is considered to occur when there is the apprehension that force will be used to cause physical contact or injury. Of course, physical contact could be the shaking of a hand, so there enters the reasonable part present in so many of our laws.

Assault is defined in statute - the legislation in relation to assault is legislated under the Offences Against The Person Act which covers common assault (though CJA does apply), ABH, GBH, assault with intent to resist arrest, attempted murder etc etc! Youre right about the apprehension of assault being common assault though - if you feel threatened by say, being shouted at, that constitues common assault. If physical force is used it comes under 'battery' and gets more serious from there on in...

But that legal stuff is boring, back to this;

Wow what a cheap shot... I see canon below nikon, but everyone has their own view.

You go ahead and try put your ff lens on a cropped sensor camera... Oh wait you can't.
BURNED!

Both nikon and canon have ups and downs.

Oh dear.... Better sell my ff lenses then!!

 

[bastic]

I work on this site (ORNC) and film crew is driving everyone nuts!!!
I had a go on one security on Tuesday as he did not wanted to let me in to my building lol

Yesterday I saw security escorting one paparazzi from the site. Everyting looked ok, he was recording the whole conversation on his iPhone...

Today, my work pals cought 2 paparazzis in one of our rooms setting up their gear...how did they get in to the building we dont know....but they were trespassing!!

Im a Tog, so I do have respect to all other togs but that was too much...I would have a proper go on them and maybe even call security, police...

 

[Coldeh]

Assault is defined in statute - the legislation in relation to assault is legislated under the Offences Against The Person Act

The act only covers Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (S. 47) along with assaults with intent. Assault itself is only in the Criminal Justice Act which, like I said, says it is a summary offence.

 

[bastic]

Oh,
And spoke to my Estates Manager for Trinity, and ORNC is a public place so no one should be stopped from taking pictures but then, you can be stopped if you are taking pictures and can get financial benefit from it .... thats why all the wedding togs are being kicked out from site once they do a photoshoot on lawns and have no permission from Greenwich Foundation
But again this place can be treated as private if they would stop public from getting in( they can and do it from time to time)

 

[Photo Plod]

The act only covers Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (S. 47) along with assaults with intent. Assault itself is only in the Criminal Justice Act which, like I said, says it is a summary offence.

And s18 (GBH), s20 (Unlawful Wounding), two other levels of assault much more serious than an ABH.

The OAP 1861 Act also includes some other wonderful offences, such as poisoning (s23 and s24), endangering railway passengers (s34) and soliciting murder (s4) that are used every day.

Contrary to what someone else posted above, Murder does not come from the OAP 1861, but is actually Common Law and does not appear in any statute. Attempted Murder would be contrary to s1 Criminal Attempts Act, as is any "attempted" offence.

I shall now shuffle off back to my station with my legal books and away from this photographic discussion :bonk:

 

[odd jim]

The act only covers Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (S. 47) along with assaults with intent. Assault itself is only in the Criminal Justice Act which, like I said, says it is a summary offence.

It covers a whole lot more than just ABH!

Plod - I stand corrected with attempted murder, it is indeed covered by the attempts act, I think I was thinking of conspicy offences...

 

[jamesb84]

And s18 (GBH), s20 (Unlawful Wounding), two other levels of assault much more serious than an ABH.

The OAP 1861 Act also includes some other wonderful offences, such as poisoning (s23 and s24), endangering railway passengers (s34) and soliciting murder (s4) that are used every day.

Contrary to what someone else posted above, Murder does not come from the OAP 1861, but is actually Common Law and does not appear in any statute. Attempted Murder would be contrary to s1 Criminal Attempts Act, as is any "attempted" offence.

I shall now shuffle off back to my station with my legal books and away from this photographic discussion :bonk:

Sorry to bring up an old thread here...but exactly what constitutes the offence of "Endangering Railway Passengers"?

 

[Alastair]

Sorry to bring up an old thread here...but exactly what constitutes the offence of "Endangering Railway Passengers"?

Privatisation of a national rail service for the purposes of profitting a capitalist elite?

 

[Photo Plod]

Sorry to bring up an old thread here...but exactly what constitutes the offence of "Endangering Railway Passengers"?

s34 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861... any unlawful act or wilful neglect that endangers the safety of passengers travelling on a railway.

About 20 - 30 people a year are convicted of it. There are other sections (32 and 33) that deal with placing objects on a railway line, but this is the main one used. An example (off the top of my head - I'm not a BTP officer) might be a train driver doing the crossword while driving along instead of concentrating on the job in hand.

 

[jamesb84]

s34 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861... any unlawful act or wilful neglect that endangers the safety of passengers travelling on a railway.

About 20 - 30 people a year are convicted of it. There are other sections (32 and 33) that deal with placing objects on a railway line, but this is the main one used. An example (off the top of my head - I'm not a BTP officer) might be a train driver doing the crossword while driving along instead of concentrating on the job in hand.

Well I'll be...Having done a touch of research, I'm particularly taken with s.26 of the act as well, wonder if and when anyone was ever charged under that.

Also, s.57 of the act...seems odd to have that in Offences against the Person.

 

[Photo Plod]

Well I'll be...Having done a touch of research, I'm particularly taken with s.26 of the act as well, wonder if and when anyone was ever charged under that.

Also, s.57 of the act...seems odd to have that in Offences against the Person.

Laws can be like history lessons, and tell you a great deal about what was going on at the time they were made. I've never had to use s26, and I doubt I ever will - but back in 1861, there was clearly a problem with servants being starved to malnutrition by their masters. Scoot forward to the 1950's and a rise in knife crime due to gang wars between Mods & Rockers, and you get the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 that made it an offence to carry a weapon in public. Laws always mirror the social conditions of the day.

Some strange offences do make it into various acts, even to the present day. The Violent Crime Act 2008 inserted a clause making sex with dead animals illegal - it was missed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which repealed all other such laws and confirmed that it was illegal to have sex with live humans without consent, dead humans and live animals...but not dead animals. Victorian legislation was often a right old mish-mash, and offences would be tacked onto particular bills as they were pushed through Parliament.

The biggest jumble I've ever found is the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, which covers everything from the power of a Superintendent to board vessels on the river to the beating of carpets in the street and the firing of cannons in public places

 

[Keenbfb]

Section 78. Act not to extend to Scotland.Nothing in this Act contained shall extend to Scotland, except as herein-before otherwise expressly provided.

Does that mean it's okay to assualt the Scotish??

 

[jamesb84]

Laws can be like history lessons, and tell you a great deal about what was going on at the time they were made. I've never had to use s26, and I doubt I ever will - but back in 1861, there was clearly a problem with servants being starved to malnutrition by their masters. Scoot forward to the 1950's and a rise in knife crime due to gang wars between Mods & Rockers, and you get the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 that made it an offence to carry a weapon in public. Laws always mirror the social conditions of the day.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "master/mistress" and "servant"... if the definition could include "employer" and "employee" it could be a lot more prevelant. I guess it only takes on enterprising barrister?!

 

[POAH]

depends if you like pain or not

Section 78. Act not to extend to Scotland.Nothing in this Act contained shall extend to Scotland, except as herein-before otherwise expressly provided.

Does that mean it's okay to assualt the Scotish??

 

[Nod]

Section 78. Act not to extend to Scotland.Nothing in this Act contained shall extend to Scotland, except as herein-before otherwise expressly provided.

Does that mean it's okay to assualt the Scotish??

OK? I believe it could be considered compulsory.