Posts Tagged ‘Press Freedom’

Different government, similar restrictions on freedom

4th April, 2011

Two officers brand a s44 stop-and-search form for photographing a London Wall building. © Grant Smith

Less than 2 months after the repeal of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, the coalition government has introduced a section similar in all but name. Section 47a gives a senior police officer an authorisation to stop and search if the officer ‘…reasonably suspects that an act of terrorism will take place.’ This is marginally different from Section 44 in that there must now be a reasonable suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place, previously no reasonable grounds were required.

What is quite apparent in the application of the remedial power is that stop-and-search is still being deployed as a preventative measure against terrorism. This is despite the fact that no stop-and-search detentions under Section 44 resulted in any terrorist prosecutions. Lord Carlile, the government’s independent review of terrorism legislation, has stated that stop-and-search without suspicion was unjustifiable and had produced nil results in terrorism terms.

As photographers working in public places, we are still treated with a suspicion that is undeserved and not experienced by most citizens going about their daily task of work.

Article Written by Grant Smith

 

Motion passed at LPB Branch Meeting 29/03/2011

This Branch is greatly concerned by the introduction of the emergency stop and search power Section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000.
This Branch agrees that police stop and search powers that do not require suspicion of an individual have and can impact on journalists right to report and record events.
Proposed by Marc Vallée, Seconded by Jonathan Warren – passed overwhelmingly by London Photographers’ branch members.

Solidarity with Egyptian Photographers

21st March, 2011

LPB Branch Secretary Jason Parkinson presents money raised from UK photographers to the family (centre) of Ahmed Mohammed Mahmoud, a photographer who was killed by a police sniper during the Egyptian Revolution. Abeer Saady (right) is from the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate.

Article by Jess Hurd/jesshurd.co.uk

 

On a follow-up trip to Cairo, myself and Branch Secretary Jason Parkinson had a very emotional meeting with Mrs Anas, the wife of press photographer Ahmed Mohammed Mahmoud who was killed by a police sniper during the Egyptian Revolution.

Ahmed’s last photograph was an image of his killer taken just before he was shot in the face. His wife hopes that this evidence will bring his murderer to justice, with the support of his trade union, the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate.

We delivered the money raised at the Battle for Cairo cinema event that the branch organised jointly with the BPPA, which featured the work of UK photographers and video journalists who covered the first 18 days of the Egyptian Revolution.

Mrs Anas and her daughter were very touched by the donation from her British colleagues and will use it to set up a photography award in Ahmed’s memory which will run every year on 25th January.

Branch member wins £30,000 compensation for G20 assault

10th December, 2010

Press release from Bindmans about branch member David Hoffman‘s successful legal action against the police:

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.

Protecting journalistic material

15th November, 2010
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 10.11.10. Student protesters and police clash outside the Conservative Party headquarters at Millbank in central London on Wednesday 10th November 2010. Early in the day 50,000 students and supporters marched against the governments plans to rises tuition fees to £9,000 per year. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) © Marc Vallée, 2010. All rights reserved.

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 10.11.10. Student protesters and police clash outside the Conservative Party headquarters at Millbank in central London on Wednesday 10th November 2010. Early in the day 50,000 students and supporters marched against the governments plans to rises tuition fees to £9,000 per year. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) © Marc Vallée, 2010. All rights reserved.

A journalist protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work

- NUJ Code of conduct

Last week many NUJ members reported on the events outside the Conservative Party headquarters at Millbank in central London. The clashes between police and student protesters was of great public interest. Many frontline journalists, at great personal risk, gathered news content for the purpose and informing the wider public of the events of the day.

The police have started their criminal investigation, for many hours the police did not have police photographers or evidence gatherers at the scene. It is likely that the police will turn to photographers, journalists and media groups for material that was gathered.

It is a fundamental journalistic principle not to hand over material, to the state or elsewhere. It is not the role of journalists to collect material for the Police.

As Tim Gopsill and Greg Neale wrote in, Journalists – 100 Years of the NUJ “On a practical and important level, if angry crowds get the idea that journalists are going to hand over pictures to the police they are likely to turn on them.

A journalist is entitled not to voluntarily hand over material that the police request and can require the police to seek a Court Order from a judge. A journalist can then make representations to the Judge if they wish. This applies both under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and counter-terrorism legislation. The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10, Freedom of Expression may be engaged, in relation to confidentiality of sources and material, and also Article 2, Right to Life, as to the safety of journalists.

If you are approached by the police for your material you should contact the NUJ before you do anything. If you are a member, during office hours you can contact the NUJ Legal Department on 020 7843 3721. If you urgently need help you call the 24hr NUJ emergency legal helpline on 0800 5877530.

We will get you legal advice and support in dealing with the police request.

Police officers cannot be above the law

11th October, 2010

Today’s Guardian reports that Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has “privately lobbied the home secretary to make it harder for people to take legal action against his force.”

Since 2006 I have sued the Metropolitan Police twice and it’s not been an easy process. It is time consuming, expensive and at times exhausting. In 2006 I was assaulted by Metropolitan Police officers when I was reporting on a protest in Parliament Square. I was taken to St Thomas’ hospital by ambulance and could not work for month. When the case settled two years later in 2008 my solicitor, Chez Cotton said:

This was an extremely unpleasant incident. Neither the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or his officers has any legal power, moral responsibility or political responsibility to prevent or restrict what the media record. Mr Vallée is a well-respected photojournalist, lawfully present to photograph a political protest outside parliament, yet he was brutally prevented from doing so by the police. It is right that Mr Vallée has received an apology, an out of court settlement and that his legal costs will be met by the police.

In late 2008 video journalist Jason Parkinson and I were unlawfully stopped by Metropolitan Police officers from reporting on a protest outside the Greek Embassy. This case settled early this year and our solicitor, Chez Cotton once again, said:

The media play a critical role in recording civil unrest, political events, including protests and demonstrations and, where it arises, police wrong doing. 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.

These are just two of the many cases that journalists – with support from the NUJ – have taken on to defend media freedom. For many the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) route is a non-starter. Many photographers have found the IPCC to be far from independent and highly bureaucratic.

Bottom line, when the police act outside the law and attack human rights and media freedoms by physically attacking media workers then the police should be held to account for such actions. It seems that Sir Paul Stephenson has other ideas.

Is this about cost-cutting in the short term or is it a more calculated strategy to give his officers a freer hand when policing the public reaction to the political and economic shockwaves of the coalition governments austerity measures. And to remove those that will give that movement the oxygen of publicity?


Marc Vallée is a freelance photojournalist and the branch’s Legal Rep.

Outrage at Police plan to issue their own press card

8th October, 2010

Leicestershire Police today revealed they will be issuing their own press card/badges for the English Defence League (EDL) protest tomorrow, Saturday 9 October 2010.

A police press office representative said the badges would be issued at a press briefing 10am tomorrow in Leicester, “in order to prove who is a legitimate journalist to the police officers on the ground”.

I contested that this is what the UK Press Card already represents. The press officer said the measure was being put in place for the safety of journalists after photographs and threats had appeared on the EDL forums and on the Casuals United blog.

NUJ London Photographers Branch Chair Jess Hurd said:

The press card that Leicestershire police is proposing to issue is unprecedented in public order policing. The UK press card authority issue press cards via professional bodies known as gatekeepers to bona fide news gatherers and is recognised by The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Nowhere does this exclude Leicestershire. This is not about journalists safety, it is about control of the media and is simply not acceptable. Press freedom will not be curtailed at the behest of the EDL.

We are waiting for a response from the chief press liaison officer who will be in charge of police/press relations at the event.
Read the rest of this entry »

Photographers unite to defend Press Freedom

6th October, 2010
Labour Party press office stickers that were issued to TV but withdrawn from photographers after the threat of a walkout. The Labour Party had wanted to select which photographers were allowed on the floor for Ed Miliband's Leaders speech. Labour Party Conference. Manchester. Image © 2010

Labour Party press office stickers that were issued to TV but withdrawn from photographers after the threat of a walkout. The Labour Party had wanted to select which photographers were allowed on the floor for Ed Miliband's Leaders speech. Labour Party Conference. Manchester. Image © 2010

Congratulations to the photographers who stood their ground against Tate Britain’s new contract, which effectively banned ‘bad’ coverage of the gallery.

This is a real victory for press freedom and follows the backing down of the Labour Party Conference press office last week. Photographers, already accredited for the event refused to allow the Labour Party to select which individuals and agencies would be allowed to photograph the Leaders speech, and threatened to walk out.

Photographers are fed up of being pushed around, all we ask for is the ability to do our jobs without negative interference from press officers, police officers or security guards.

Reporting from the Deepwater Disaster

5th October, 2010

Last week video journalist and branch committee member Jason Parkinson spoke to the branch about his trip to the Gulf of Mexico to document the environmental disaster following the leak from the Deepwater Horizon oil well. He showed a draft version of the film he has been putting together and also some of the manipulated images that BP published showing their operations after the leak.

Jason also talked about how he had already sold video clips from the story and how he was making a longer film to pitch to media organisations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Defending Press Freedom

21st September, 2010

A journalist at all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.

- NUJ Code of Conduct

The February meeting of the London Photographers’ Branch agreed to create the position of Legal Rep. It was agreed that the person elected to this position would support Branch members who have had a ‘negative encounter’ with the police and to coordinate the Branch’s relationship with the police.

I’m proud that Branch members have elected me to this position. The Legal Rep’s job is to support members to uphold and defend press freedom, in hindsight maybe the Branch should of named the position ‘Press Freedom Rep’.

Just to be clear the Legal Rep does not give legal advice, that is the job of the NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff and the specialist lawyers that the union uses. It is the job of the Legal Rep to get you into a meeting with the most appropriate national officer or lawyer to help you.

So what kind of situations does the Legal Rep support members with?

A Branch member was stopped & searched three times in 45 minutes by police whilst covering a protest in London; branch members were forcibly removed and stopped by police from covering an EDL protest in Bradford; a branch member was forced to delete pictures under the threat of arrest in east London; branch members have been violently assaulted by police officers when working and a branch member has been threatened with a warrant by police to seize pictures of a political protest.

These are some of the real and current situations that Branch members have had to face when working, a barometer of the current political situation in the context of press and media freedom today.

In the majority of cases I have been one of the first people in the branch that members have contacted when things go wrong with the police. One of the first things is to listen to find out what the member needs. To give the member an idea of some of the options that are available to them. This could be highlighting the issue in the media, making a complaint to the police or IPCC or take legal action – sometimes all three!

Practically, this involves time, emails, phone calls and meetings to get the Branch member the best support the union can give them.

Currently the Branch does not have any formal contact with the Metropolitan Police. The Branch has successfully gained the agreement of NUJ Freelance Officer John Toner to report to the Branch on the meetings he attends, along with other organisations that represent photographers, with the police.

Meetings with the police are problematic at best, sharing a cup of tea with senior officers is seen by many as no more then a public relations exercise on behalf the police. The lack of any real concrete and lasting change in the behaviour of frontline officers gives weight to this view.

A trade union of photographers and journalists – a freedom of expression organisation – has to be cautious about such contact with a section of the state. Especially when it’s our members job to report on the actions of the police to the wider public. Transparency is the key and full and open records of any such meetings is vital for a democratic member lead organisation like ours.

Photographer threatened with arrest and forced to delete images

2nd August, 2010

Branch member Carmen Valino had images deleted from her camera by police and was threatened with arrest whilst photographing the scene of a shooting in Hackney, East London. The incident happened on Saturday as Valino photographed the crime scene from outside a police cordon whilst on assignment from the Hackney Gazette. She had identified herself as a journalist and showed her UK Press Card to police.

A police Sergeant approached Valino telling her that she was disrupting a police investigation and to hand over her camera. After protesting to the Sergeant that she was in a public place, outside the cordon he had no right to take her camera, he grabbed her wrist and pulled out his handcuffs. Before he could put the cuffs on she handed him her camera. He then left for five minutes before coming back, bringing Valino inside the cordon and asking her to show him the images and deleting them. Valino was told that she could come back in a few hours to photograph the scene.

This incident highlights how police officers are still woefully ignorant of the law regarding photography and the agreed ACPO Media Guidelines which state:

Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.

It comes days after Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson admitted that officers did not always apply laws and guidelines to photographers correctly. Valino is being supported by the branch and is seeking legal advice with backing from the NUJ.

Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary said “The abuse of the law must stop. There is a gulf between photographers legal rights and the current practices of individual police officers. The police should uphold the law, not abuse it – photographers acting in the public interest deserve better.”

NUJ supports threatened photographerNational Union of Journalists