Greater Manchester Police have applied for a production order with a hearing on Monday 18 February compelling NUJ member and video journalist Jason N. Parkinson to hand over footage to the police.

The application is for all published and unpublished footage shot between the hours of 10.30am and 12.30pm at the English Defence League (EDL) march and counter protest organised by Unite Against Fascism (UAF) in Bolton on Saturday 20 March 2010.

Mr Parkinson with the full support of the NUJ intends to oppose the production order.

Jason Parkinson said: “I am not willing to hand unpublished material over. Journalists report the news and are not evidence gatherers for the police or anyone else. To do so would endanger the safety of all journalists in similar situations in the future. We would not be regarded as independent and would become greater targets from all sides.

“Also handing over the footage could overturn the incredibly important victory for press freedom we achieved fighting the Dale Farm production order last year.”

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary said: “Jason Parkinson is a front line journalist and should have the right to work in the public interest without fearing he will be forced to hand over his footage. The union will continue to support Jason’s campaign to protect journalistic sources and material.”

Jason was served a production order in 2011 for all footage shot over the two days of the Dale Farm eviction in Essex. Major national broadcasters also opposed the production order. In a united effort, the NUJ led an eight-month battle in partnership with the BBC, ITN, Sky and Hardcash Productions that ended in the Royal Courts of Justice. In May 2012 Judge Moses overturned the original Dale Farm production order in a huge win for press freedom in the UK.

Related Material

Dale Farm Production Order Overturned

NUJ and Broadcasters Granted Judicial Review

Why I’m Resisting the Dale Farm Production Order

“The London Photographers’ Branch (LPB) wishes to send a message of solidarity to broadcasters in Northern Ireland who are fighting a court order seeking all footage over violent clashes in North Belfast this summer.

The BBC, Ulster TV, Sky News and the Press Association have joined forces in resisting the application that seeks all unbroadcast material and photographs taken during the 12 July disorder in the Ardoyne area.

LPB knows all too well the damage that is inflicted on a free press forced to become the eyes and ears of the police. Forcing the media to be police intelligence only leads to increased attacks on frontline journalists trying to accurately report all sides of conflict.

LPB condemns this wide-ranging trawl for intelligence and commends the actions of those broadcasters standing up to oppose this attack on a free and independent press.”

Proposed by Jason N. Parkinson Seconded by Jess Hurd

Related posts

Why I’m Resisting the Dale Farm Production Order

NUJ Appeals Dale Farm Production Order

Broadcasters Granted Judicial Review

Defending Journalism – Parliamentary Discussion

Defending Journalism – Judicial Review

Dale Farm Production Order Overturned

Production Order – Challenging False Allegations

Topshop security guard. UK Uncut – Big Society Revenue and Customs, campaign for companies to pay tax. Oxford St, London © Jess Hurd/reportdigital.co.uk

This is a report from Roy Mincoff, NUJ Legal Officer who attended a meeting with Topshop’s Operations manager following an apology for an assault and ban of London Photographer’ Branch Chair Jess Hurd.

“Jess Hurd was manhandled, assaulted and detained when covering a protest at Topshop in Oxford Street. Jess rightly wanted an apology for the distress she suffered and withdrawal of a ban from her entering the store. She did not want legal action or damages for what had happened, preferring to use her time on her work and union commitments.

After initially ignoring representations from the union, further legal and public representations were made after which Jess and I met senior representatives of Arcadia group, the store owners. They apologised verbally and sent a written apology for publication. The ban on Jess was removed. Also, they welcomed input from the NUJ into ensuring their security personnel were aware of the rights of the media, to try to ensure that similar situations are not repeated.

Subsequently I met with the shop Operations manager and one of his team, explaining media rights, such as not to be assaulted or detained, not to have equipment or photographs seized and to be treated with respect whilst covering events, not forcibly ejected if asked and agreeing to leave.

Additionally, they would be pleased to contact the union should other  protests or events be known to be occurring so that union members could attend and report these. A suitable number would need to be supplied.

These events apparently rarely happen inside Topshop  though occasionally outside.

The shop is under no obligation to permit photographs inside but is willing to have NUJ photographers attend and would consider having an advance briefing if possible. Clearly the shop would want to know that those attending are genuine members of the media, working professionally, and are not protestors or ordinary members of the public. Production and preferably display of a UK Press Card or other internationally recognised one would assist in avoiding  difficulties, and is recommended. This also assists in police recognising genuine members of the media.

Topshop security staff will be informed of the rights of the media and will have a senior operative to refer to should difficulties arise. The Topshop  contractors in their various stores will similarly be informed and trained. The union is prepared to assist in that if needed, so that our members are better able to work without these problems.

Arcadia is aware that should there be breaches of the rights of the media in future, particularly having had these explained at a senior level, the company is at serious risk of legal action, which unsurprisingly it wishes to avoid.

The union will monitor this closely, and be prepared to take appropriate action should there be further incidents.”

This DM notes with alarm the increase use of Production Orders by police to seize photographs, footage and audio recordings made by professional journalists at public order events such as the student protests, the 2011 summer riots and the Dale Farm eviction.

DM believes that:

media workers must remain independent of police operations and the state, both for the integrity of their reporting and their personal safety.

-there is a clear difference between asking for specific images of specific criminal acts and these broad police ‘fishing trips’.

-simply using journalistic material to gather evidence for police databases is not acceptable.

This DM applauds the work of the NUJ in supporting individual members who legally challenge these excessive production orders.

DM instructs the NEC to continue working with other media organisations and civil liberties groups to defend the principles outlined in the NUJ code of conduct regarding protection of sources and materials.

Related Articles

Why I’m Resisting the Dale Farm Production Order

NUJ Appeals Dale Farm Production Order

Broadcasters Granted Judicial Review

Defending Journalism – Parliamentary Discussion

Defending Journalism – Judicial Review

Dale Farm Production Order Overturned

Production Order – Challenging False Allegations

6pm, 28th August 2012, NUJ, 308 Gray’s Inn Road

Technology and widespread Internet access encourage instant freedom of communication and organisation on a level previously thought impossible. We’ve seen the impact of these new ways of organising across the Middle East last year and in many situations closer to home. But there’s a sinister, dangerous side to these technologies where companies and governments can access, use and block data to censor, spy on, follow or hurt those trying to distribute it.

We’ve seen the state simply turning off communications in Egypt, the Syrian military targeting and killing journalist Marie Colvin and her colleagues after locating them through their data transmissions, and journalists having data cards, tapes and computer equipment taken or destroyed in many other countries. This meeting will cover two aspects of data security; the technological side of encryption, backup, secure transmission & ensuring data file integrity as well as the legal side of the laws relating to the state accessing and retaining your information, police surveillance and monitoring activities, your Data Protection obligations and protection from seizure of journalistic material as evidence.

Speaking will be Anna Mazzola & Athalie Matthews from Bindmans LLP as well as a Q&A on technology with photographers Edward Hirst & Jules Mattsson.

Please do RSVP on facebook here and invite interested colleagues, our panel meetings are open to all.

Photographer Jess Hurd defies her ban from Topshop’s flagship Oxford Street store © Autumn Parkinson

Topshop offers to meet photographer Jess Hurd and NUJ representatives

In response to demands from the NUJ, Topshop have contacted the union and offered a meeting with senior representatives of Topshop and Arcadia to discuss Jess Hurd’s complaint. As a consequence the NUJ protest on Saturday 11 August has now been cancelled.

Jess Hurd said: “I am pleased Topshop have apologised for the delay and offered to meet with the NUJ – up until now the company had ignored my complaint. I would like to thank fellow NUJ members who organised solidarity and put pressure on Topshop via social networks. Collectively we will continue to make companies accountable when they refuse to respect press freedom and defend members who suffer abuse in this way.”

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary said: “I am glad Topshop have seen sense and have responded to the complaint. Journalists play a critical public interest role in reporting on protests so the public are informed about what was happening. It is simply unacceptable that NUJ members face abuse and harassment whilst doing their jobs.”

Jess Hurd described the event in a complaint sent to Topshop in March 2012:

“Whilst attempting to photograph arrests of peaceful Uk Uncut protesters in Topshop, Oxford Circus, I was asked by a person I thought to be a security guard to leave, I said ‘ok’.

“As I was leaving I took a couple of pictures of an arrest. The man then said ‘right I’m arresting you for aggravated trespass’. He was not wearing a uniform and had not identified himself as a police officer.

“He began manhandling me, I said, ‘I’m a member of the press, I don’t understand why you are arresting me, I’m trying to leave’. He continued to use force to move me towards the back of the store and pulled my clothing up, exposing my upper body. I was sure that he didn’t have arrest powers and challenged again, he then said he was detaining me for ‘resisting arrest’. He was using quite a lot of force and I was shouting ‘you’re assaulting me, get your hands off me’.

“The security guard who ‘arrested’ me said that I couldn’t photograph and to keep my camera pointed down. The police officers held me by each wrist.

“I asked them if I was really arrested and they said yes. I asked them under what law I was arrested as I was there working as a member of the press. They quoted s68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.

“I asked if I could get my phone out because I wanted to record their details and the law they were using. They refused saying that I could make a call down at the police station. They continued to hold me and asked to take my camera which I declined.

“An inspector came into the room. I asked him why I was being held and that I was a member of the press. The male officer asked him if they were ‘continuing the original plan’, or words to that effect. The inspector said ‘hang on’ and sent the woman officer to get the security guard.

“They all came back and said I would be released but that I was ‘banned from Topshop’, I asked ‘why?’ and he said it was because I ‘trespassed’. I clarified, ‘so I’m not arrested then?’ and the inspector said, ‘not if you acknowledge that you have been banned from the store’.

Read full NUJ complaint

Drapers Online article

NUJ Press Release

We will keep you updated with developments.

• Remain calm, polite and reasonable at all times
• Immediately confirm you are working as a journalist and show your press card
• ACPO/Met police agreed Media Guidelines confirm that the police have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what journalists record
• Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) the police have no power to seize journalistic material without a court order (See NUJ advice). Do not physically resist
• Private Security have no additional rights other than that of an ordinary citizen on public property. Except where they are Accredited Persons. You can be asked to leave whilst photographing on private property, you could be arrested and charged with the offence of trespass if you refuse.
• Try to film or record the conversation so that there is a record of the incident. Get witness names and contact details. Also badge numbers of police officers

Police Powers 

Stop & Search – Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act 1984 

You don’t have to give your details but best to cooperate and show your press card

Under this act police must:

• Provide ID, name and police station
• Tell you the object of proposed search
• Provide a search record (important for any later legal action)

Section 1 PACE allows the police to search you if they have reasonable suspicion that you have an offensive weapon

s43 – Terrorism Act 2000

• with reasonable suspicion police can stop and search you for anything that may constitute evidence that you are a terrorist
• a police officer of the same sex must search you
• police can seize and retain anything reasonably considered evidence

s47a Terrorism Act 2000 (replaces repealed s44)

• A senior police officer with reasonable suspicion can designate an area where it is thought an act of terrorism might take place. No reasonable suspicion is required to stop and search for terrorism evidence. Police can retain anything found and reasonably suspected of being evidence

s58a Terrorism Act 

• It is illegal for a person to elicit or attempt to elicit (collect) information from an individual who is, or has been a member of the armed forces, intelligence services or a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism or publishes or communicates any such information. Equipment can be viewed and seized. Maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment

 s60 Public Order Act

Police can:

• authorise a designated area on reasonable belief that serious violence has taken, or may take place
• search individuals or vehicles in that area with or without reasonable suspicion, for prohibited weapons or dangerous instruments (e.g. sharps)
• require removal of any item used wholly or mainly to conceal identity
• journalists could be charged with obstruction if they refuse to cooperate

s5 Public Order Act 

• Using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour within the hearing of someone likely to be harassed, alarmed or distressed.
• An arrestable offence and a fine up to £5000.00 if you actually cause harm or offence

s14 Public Order Act

• The most senior police officer can place conditions on a public assembly such as place, duration and numbers and can clear an area if he/she believes that serious disorder, threat to property or disruption to the life of the community will occur
• It is a criminal offence not to cooperate and you can be fined or imprisoned

Accredited Persons

• A chief constable can set up a community accreditation scheme
• Traffic wardens, security guards, store detectives etc can apply and get the powers usually associated with the police or Police Community Support Officers. They are issued ID cards
• Can issue fixed penalty notices for a wide range of minor offences. They have the power to photograph, take names and addresses of persons they suspect of a crime or anti social behaviour. Offence if you refuse.
• They do not have the power to detain
• Police Community Support Officer can detain for 30 mins until police arrive

Other resources:

Audio - Olympic Concerns LPB legal meeting with Bindmans

Article - Hostile Olympic Security 

Olympics Accredited Persons, Advertising and Trademarks

Video journalist Jason N. Parkinson with NUJ supporters outside the Royal Courts of Justice before the Dale Farm production order judicial review. © Jess Hurd/reportdigital.co.uk

The NUJ and other media organisations have won the judicial review at the Court of Appeal following the decision by Chelmsford Crown Court to grant the Dale Farm footage production order. The decision to force journalists to hand over unbroadcast footage has been overturned.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary said: “Today is a huge victory for the cause of press freedom and the protection of sources and journalistic material. We are incredibly pleased that the NUJ and other media organisations have won the High Court battle against the police production order to force journalists to hand over their Dale Farm eviction footage.”

Jason Parkinson, who challenged the order said: “This ruling to overturn the Crown Court’s decision to grant the Dale Farm production order sends a very clear message to all police forces that these wide-ranging fishing trips will not be accepted by the UK courts and that we will not be forced into to role of unwilling agents of the state. We are not there as evidence gatherers to fill police intelligence databases with hours of material on activists or protestors, we are journalists and we are there to report the news and keep the public informed.

In the last 18 months, every time one of these orders has been served it has put journalists in greater danger while trying to report on public order situations. I know this because I have been threatened and assaulted by people claiming my material will be used by the police. I am very happy to see Judge Moses has recognised the impact these orders have on the safety and impartiality of all journalists and has made sure any future production order applications must take this into account, as was clearly not the case this time round.”

This victory would not have been possible without the support of the NUJ legal team and campaign department. Special thanks to our General Secretary Michelle Stanistreet for her support, Roy Mincoff from the NUJ legal department, Sarah Kavanagh and Frances Rafferty from the NUJ campaign department, Martin Rackstraw from Bindmans Solicitors, Gavin Millar QC and all our campaign supporters.

We should not underestimate the significant stress and energy that go in to challenging such production orders, especially for freelancers, whose reputation and safety is on the line. It is extremely important that the High Court has acknowledged and reinforced the independent role of frontline journalists and their safety in gathering the news for future public order situations.

Press Clippings:

Read Guardian, Independent, ITN, BBC, Press Gazette articles.

John Toner (NUJ), David Hoffman (EPUK), Adam Mynott (G4S)

Headland House May 10, 2012

Following the incident on 21 April 2012 where two G4S security staff assaulted me and other photographers working on public land outside the Olympic Park John Toner, NUJ Freelance Organiser arranged a meeting with Adam Mynott, G4S Director of Media Relations and me, David Hoffman, wearing my (white) EPUK Moderator hat.

The meeting started on a positive note with Mynott apologising for the actions of the guards who he described as having “behaved wrongly” and having “acted incorrectly”. We were particularly concerned by two comments that the guards’ supervisor made. She had said:

“We are told we should refrain people from taking photos” and “It his job to basically approach people and deter them from taking photographs of the secure area.”

Mynott told us that this was not how G4S trained their guards and, specifically, that “photography was not to be discouraged in any way at all” and it was NOT their job to approach and deter photographers He was quite clear that there should be no interference at all to photographers working on public land and that the guards had been reminded of this following the April incident.

Adam Mynott told us that they were recruiting 10,000 staff for the Olympics and that there was a structured training programme. No member of staff would have less than 4 days training and some would have up to 14 days. All their training was to SIA approved standards and the security guards were SIA accredited. We were assured that the training was running well, was on schedule and not being rushed.

Mynott told us that he was aware of the National Press Card and that his staff were trained on it and on how to recognise a UKPCA card. John Toner gave him some UKPCA posters to help in training.

We asked about the presence of guards on public land. Mynott assured us that the security guards should only operate within the Olympic Park border, that they should not have left the Olympic Park in the April incident and that they would be reminded of this.

I mentioned that Jason Parkinson had twice been stopped recently on the public road outside the Olympic Park by security guards in an SUV. Mynott could not adequately explain that and we will be following this up as it directly contradicts the assurances we had been given.

We asked if G4S could provide a map showing what land was public and what was the Olympic Park. He will try to arrange that.

We were particularly keen to have a 24/7 hotline direct to G4S senior management as a way of resolving problems, rather than having to resort to the police. Adam Mynott suggested we use his mobile number (this will be available on the members’ area of this site).

It was a friendly and constructive meeting and we got the impression that G4S do genuinely understand the issues and want to avoid making difficulties for us. Whether they are capable of training their 10,000 staff to a standard sufficient to achieve that is yet to be seen.

The May meeting of the London Photographers’ Branch will be Olympic Concerns: Preparing Photographers for London 2012, a discussion and debate with Bindmans Lawyer Chez Cotton.