The well known and highly respected National Union of Journalist member David Hoffman, who is represented by Chez Cotton, head of the Police Misconduct Department at leading civil rights law firm Bindmans LLP, has received £30,000 damages today from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.

Mr Hoffman was working in a professional capacity covering the G20 protests.  Despite being out of the way and not interfering with any police operation, an inspector in full riot gear ran towards Mr Hoffman and hit him in the face with a shield, fracturing Mr Hoffman’s teeth. As well as paying compensation and the cost of the extensive dental work that has been required, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has also apologised to Mr Hoffman for the treatment he received and has confirmed the force’s recognition that journalists have a right to report freely.

Mr Hoffman’s solicitor Chez Cotton says:

“Journalists such as my client are critical in disseminating information into the wider public domain. Reporters and photojournalists play a significant role recording political unrest, political events, which includes recording protest and, if it arises, police wrong doing. That my client was assaulted by a police officer when carrying out this essential function, and brutally so, is shocking. Fortunately with photographic and film evidence of the incident and detailed testimony, Mr Hoffman has succeeded in holding the police to account. It is absolutely right that the Metropolitan Police Force has paid significant damages, given an apology and confirmed recognition and respect for a free press.”

The apology from the Metropolitan Police states:

“On 1 April 2009 well-respected social issues photographer David Hoffman was recording the G20 protests in the City of London. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) recognise that Mr Hoffman was entitled to report on that day but was caused injury by an MPS officer during the event, preventing him from doing so. The MPS confirms its recognition that freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy and that journalists have a right to report freely. The MPS apologise to Mr Hoffman for the treatment he received and have paid compensation.”

NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff said:
“David Hoffman suffered very painful injuries as a result of this entirely unnecessary gratuitous and violent assault on him while properly and professionally going about his work. The role of journalists, including photographers, as the public watchdog, must be respected. It is one of the essential elements of a democratic society that journalists are entitled to inform the public, which itself is entitled to be informed. The NUJ has fought for this to be recognised, and is pleased that the Police has now accepted responsibility and properly compensated Mr Hoffman.”

Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary said:

“No journalist should be singled out by the police and the police service has no legal powers or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict photographer’s work. Journalists have a duty to record and report on public protests as well as the behaviour of the police.  David’s case is a shocking example of police brutality and totally unacceptable. We believe that attacks on working journalists are attacks on democracy and on society’s ability to make informed decisions. The NUJ will continue to take action in support of our members when they are targeted by police.”

Background to the case

Mr Hoffman, a well respected social issues journalist and member of the National Union of Journalists, attended in a professional capacity to report on the G20 protests on 1 April 2009 in the City of London. Throughout the event Mr Hoffman was carrying professional equipment and had his Press Card clearly visible around his neck and was obviously a journalist.

Mr Hoffman took photographs at various sites throughout the day.  At around 4 p.m. police in the Bank area stopped Mr Hoffman and others from moving forward and tried to push everyone back.  However, due to the size of the crowd behind Mr Hoffman there was nowhere to move back to.

After about ten minutes the police intensified their action and started to push Mr Hoffman and the others in the crowd using their shields and batons aggressively, even though there was still nowhere to move back to. Mr Hoffman was standing beside a line of police officers and was for no reason pushed hard by an officer, to one side.

Mr Hoffman saw a space and was anxious to avoid any further trouble.  He moved to one side so that he was further away from the police. Whilst doing this, Mr Hoffman was suddenly hit for no reason with considerable weight in the back by a policeman using his shield. This threw him violently into the back of a man in front of him.

Mr Hoffman moved even further away form the police and was  partly shielded by some builders’ boards.  He remained in this position, out of the way, and watched the events around him with his camera raised, ready to report. He was doing absolutely nothing wrong and was photographing without interfering in any police operation.

A few seconds later a heavily built inspector in full riot gear suddenly left the group of police officers he was with, ran directly towards Mr Hoffman, and deliberately hit him hard in the face with a shield. The shield made contact with great force, causing Mr Hoffman considerable pain and causing one of his cameras to fly round where it was knocked, causing damage to the equipment. Mr Hoffman was shocked and in pain from the shield hitting him and was thrown backwards.

It was subsequently confirmed that Mr Hoffman’s teeth had been fractured.  Mr Hoffman instructed Chez Cotton of Bindmans LLP to act on his behalf and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Proceedings were issued and the claim was settled shortly after the Particulars of Claim were served. The terms of settlement were agreed by Consent between the parties. The Central London County Court sealed the agreement at the beginning of December and the Commissioner of Police has today paid the damages in full.

Image © James MacKay

Branch member photojournalist, James Mackay, represented by Chez Cotton, head of the Police Misconduct Department, at leading civil rights law firm Bindmans LLP, has succeeded in a complaint against the British Transport Police after he was unlawfully ordered by one of their officers to delete photographs he had taken on the basis that he “was not allowed to photograph the police.”

The journalist, who predominantly works on issues in and surrounding Burma and currently is working with exiled organisations on a global campaign to raise awareness on political prisoners in Burma, was passing through Waterloo mainline station on his way to catch a flight on 8 May 2009 and witnessed a number of Police Community Support Officers (PSCOs) apparently detaining a male.

The detained male lay on the floor in full view of the public and appeared distressed, crying out he was hurt and had done nothing wrong. The journalist began to record the incident from a distance so as not to interfere with any police operation, wanting independent evidence of what had happened and hoping his presence would offer re-assurance. Instead the journalist himself became the subject of unwarranted and unlawful police attention. The journalist complained he was threatened with arrest if he did not delete the six photographs he had managed to take, despite there being nationally in force guidelines agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that “Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents, and we (the police) have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they (journalists) record.”

Mr Mackay’s solicitor Chez Cotton said:

The incident highlights only too clearly the difficulties faced by journalists and photographers working in Britain today, where increasingly the police are attempting to use legislation for dealing with terrorism and serious public order incidents to prevent reporting on events of legitimate public interest, such as civil unrest, protest and, where it occurs, police wrong-doing. Working in Burma where there is no free press or freedom of speech; the value of ensuring these fundamental rights are protected in this country is of paramount importance to my client by way of complaint or legal action as necessary.

NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff said:

The NUJ is delighted that the complaint that the Police acted outside their powers has been upheld, and that it was recognised there has been ‘an inherent lack of understanding’ amongst Police and Police Community Support Officers about these issues. Following persistent representations by the NUJ, the Association of Chief Police Officers issued instructions and guidance as to compliance with the law. The NUJ will continue to monitor progress closely and will take any necessary action should there be future breaches. It is hoped that the message will get through to officers at all ranks that these rights are fundamental and cannot be ignored.

Complaint upheld

Mr Mackay, through the NUJ, instructed Chez Cotton of law firm Bindmans to make a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. An investigation carried out by the British Transport Police confirmed:

That it was not disputed that PCSO Juneja requested Mr Mackay to cease taking photographs and delete the images from his camera, since this was corroborated by the pocket note book of the officer and the statement of the journalist.

The report states: “…it is clear from legislation and subsequent guidance that PCSO Juneja was acting outside of his powers without justification….complaint upheld.”

….it is clear that Mr Mackay was detained for a period, albeit a short time and this was against his will to leave. It is not in dispute that the PCSO had no power to detain Mr Mackay in these circumstances therefore it must be considered that the period of detention was unwarranted….complaint upheld.

Advice given to the officer

The report confirms that ‘advice’ has been given to the officer, including:

…acting outside of lawful powers can lead to misconduct proceedings for you as an individual, or civil actions against the force. In this instance a member of the media, a valuable partner in dealing with crime and disorder, has been hindered from going about his business due to your actions. You are reminded that there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, file or digital images in a public place and members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.

Full background

On 8 May 2009 Mr Mackay, whilst passing through Waterloo Mainline Station, saw a number of Police Community Support Officers (PSCOs) apparently arresting or detaining a male. The detained male was lying on the floor in full view of the public and appeared to be in some distress, crying out in pain, saying he was hurt and had done nothing wrong. The situation concerned the journalist, and from around seven to eight metres away and without interfering with the police operation, he began to photograph what was happening; not only because it was noteworthy but also because he thought his presence might offer reassurance and temper any thought of wrong doing. Importantly, he would be able to provide independent evidence of what had happened if this was required in the future.

The journalist had taken six photographs before he was approached by PCSO Juneja and instructed immediately by the officer to stop taking photographs. Despite confirming that he was a member of the press, an NUJ member and offering to show his UK Press Card to prove his credentials, the journalist was instead escorted to a corner of a nearby lift entrance and wrongly told he was not allowed to take photographs of the police, or of any incident taking place, or within the station. PCSO Juneja was joined by two other officers, all of whom appeared unaware of the agreement between the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and various media organisations, including the NUJ, which are in force nationally and confirm that members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and the police have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is further accepted by ACPO that the police should actively help journalists to carry out their responsibilities, provided they do not interfere with police responsibilities.

The guidance makes clear to the police that “Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents, and we (the police) have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they (journalists) record.”

Mr Mackay complained that when he tried to explain reasonably that the police had no power to interfere with his reporting he was treated in an intimidating way and threatened with arrest if he did not delete all of the photographs he had taken. He was told that he could not report on “this” incident and that he was not allowed to publish any photographs in the media. When asked why, the officer confirmed he was refusing to allow Mr Mackay to take photographs because he “was not allowed to take photographs of the police.”.

Although Mr Mackay did not wish to delete the photographs and believed the officer had no legal basis for enforcing this and was acting outside of any lawful power the officer had; needing to catch his flight and understanding from the officer’s behaviour, attitude and statement of intention that he would be arrested if he did not comply and delete the footage, Mr Mackay complied.

Video: Journalists win payout after police admit failing to respect press freedom – guardian.co.uk

Investigative photojournalist Marc Vallée and videographer Jason Parkinson have received an apology and damages from the Metropolitan Police after being forcibly prevented from working by officers at a political protest outside the Greek Embassy in 2008. Both members received the apology today:

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has accepted liability for breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The MPS apologise for this and have paid compensation. The MPS confirms its recognition that freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy and that journalists have a right to report freely. The MPS recognise that on 8 December 2008 they failed to respect press freedom in respect of Mr Vallée and Mr Parkinson.

The police have accepted liability for breaching Article 10 and made a payment of £3,500 compensation to each and are paying their legal costs.

Responding to the settlement Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary said:

Professional journalists and photographers have detailed numerous attempts by police officers to stifle the reporting of protests. Today we have achieved a significant victory – it is right that the police admit liability, apologise and compensate those whose basic human rights were breached in such a blatant and aggressive manner.

The police need to quickly learn the lessons of these shameful events, recognise the importance of media freedom and take the necessary steps to recognise the press card during police training to ensure it doesn’t happen again. The result is a huge boost for media freedom and the rights of photographers.

On the day of the protest armed officer from the Metropolitan police’s diplomatic protection group pulled Vallée’s camera away from his face and covered the lens of Parkinson’s video camera whilst stating “you cannot film me.”

NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff said:

The police need to learn that journalists and photographers have a right to report and photograph as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights. The NUJ has held the police to account before and will do so again unless all officers at all ranks abide by the law

Chez Cotton, Head of the Police Misconduct department at leading civil rights firm Bindmans LLP said:

It is of grave concern that an armed, diplomatic officer of the Metropolitan Police Force felt it was appropriate to call these journalists ‘scum’ and stop them from working and was happy to do so in full knowledge that he was being filmed.

My clients were physically prevented from reporting on protest and political unrest of international importance.  Just before he was frog marched by officers away from events, Mr Parkinson filmed an officer punching a protester in the side of the head, although the protester appears to be already under the control of several officers.  That the police appeared not to want these journalists to film what appeared to be extremely brutal arrests using force is a cause for further alarm.

Further to this public acknowledgment that his officers have breached the fundamental right of journalists to report, and in light of wide ranging criticisms of how the press were stopped from reporting at G20 and other ‘politically sensitive’ events, it is very much hoped that the Commissioner will take immediate steps to ensure his officers act properly and support rather than obstruct the press in the important role they play in keeping the public informed, including of police wrong doing.

The pair were not disrupting police activity and had not had any contact with the police prior to the incident. They had complied with requests to leave the area but were forcibly removed and told to report from a distance.

Marc is the London Photographers’ Branch Secretary and Legal Rep and Jason is the branch Welfare Officer.