This IS the New England
Discussion
A newspapers staff photographer who took some photo,s of two empty crashed cars on a public road from a distance, was confronted by a Thames Valley police sgt who told him that he could not take pictures as it was a crime scene.
Photographer protests and says is in his right to take a photo, sgt states he will be arrested unless he hands over camera, photographer refuses, and is handcuffed and arrested.At station he is finger printed, DNA tested, picture taken, interviewed and cautioned for obstruction, and released at 1-15am after 8 hours.
Following a 5 month battle by the NUJ, TV assistant CC has confirmed that all records of the incident have been deleted from the police national computer.
A complete wastes of time, and public relations below rock bottom--or have I missed something?.
Photographer protests and says is in his right to take a photo, sgt states he will be arrested unless he hands over camera, photographer refuses, and is handcuffed and arrested.At station he is finger printed, DNA tested, picture taken, interviewed and cautioned for obstruction, and released at 1-15am after 8 hours.
Following a 5 month battle by the NUJ, TV assistant CC has confirmed that all records of the incident have been deleted from the police national computer.
A complete wastes of time, and public relations below rock bottom--or have I missed something?.
chrispy porker said:
presumably, after legal advice, he admitted the offence.
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
What offence? At a push, if a member of the public was photographing the police doing their job and getting in the way at the same time, maybe. But a newspaper photographer doing his job? Presumably they treated the SOCO photographer in exactly the same manner for taking photographs of the same crime scene?
gilbertd said:
chrispy porker said:
presumably, after legal advice, he admitted the offence.
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
What offence? At a push, if a member of the public was photographing the police doing their job and getting in the way at the same time, maybe. But a newspaper photographer doing his job? Presumably they treated the SOCO photographer in exactly the same manner for taking photographs of the same crime scene?
I don't know, OP says 'obstruction' of what or whom is not clear. But the OP stated he was cautioned by the police after interview, therefore he must have admitted some offence, when interviewed, during which he would have had the opportunity of legal advice from a solicitor.
None of this adds up as stated.
chrispy porker said:
gilbertd said:
chrispy porker said:
presumably, after legal advice, he admitted the offence.
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
What offence? At a push, if a member of the public was photographing the police doing their job and getting in the way at the same time, maybe. But a newspaper photographer doing his job? Presumably they treated the SOCO photographer in exactly the same manner for taking photographs of the same crime scene?
I don't know, OP says 'obstruction' of what or whom is not clear. But the OP stated he was cautioned by the police after interview, therefore he must have admitted some offence, when interviewed, during which he would have had the opportunity of legal advice from a solicitor.
None of this adds up as stated.
Cautioned as in "You do not have to say anything .............." perhaps. In that case he need not have committed an offence only accused of committing one surely.
Whole things seems a bit OTT if you ask me anyway.
BB
BigBob said:
chrispy porker said:
gilbertd said:
chrispy porker said:
presumably, after legal advice, he admitted the offence.
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
What offence? At a push, if a member of the public was photographing the police doing their job and getting in the way at the same time, maybe. But a newspaper photographer doing his job? Presumably they treated the SOCO photographer in exactly the same manner for taking photographs of the same crime scene?
I don't know, OP says 'obstruction' of what or whom is not clear. But the OP stated he was cautioned by the police after interview, therefore he must have admitted some offence, when interviewed, during which he would have had the opportunity of legal advice from a solicitor.
None of this adds up as stated.
Cautioned as in "You do not have to say anything .............." perhaps. In that case he need not have committed an offence only accused of committing one surely.
Whole things seems a bit OTT if you ask me anyway.
BB
OP said Interviewed & cautioned , not cautioned & interviewed.
The former would suggest an official caution for an offence, which would require an admission of the offence.
The latter would suggest a caution (reminded of right of silence) prior to interview.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 29th March 22:04
fluffnik said:
chrispy porker said:
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
Yes.
There seems no good reason to prevent people photographing what they can see.
Ever.
I think I'd have an issue with a peadophille photographing children he can see in a playground. Depends what your doing with it, depends if your going to publicise the pics and they for example at the crash scene cannot get hold of some of the relatives or there may be info in a picture that is shown could compromise an investigation. Does all seem rather odd this. However the chap admitted the offence of obstruction it would appear so not quite sure we have the full story.
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
chrispy porker said:
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
Yes.
There seems no good reason to prevent people photographing what they can see.
Ever.
That would depend where they are when they do it. If for instance they had breached a cordon in order to do so......
But this guy doesn't appear to have breached a cordon - and TBF, these days of image enhancement and super-long lenses, you can count the pubic hairs on fly in a picture taken from miles away
He was also a Press Photographer and as such he and his employer would have been bound by a Code of Conduct - You know, Like ACPO issue for .............
BB
BigBob said:
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
chrispy porker said:
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
Yes.
There seems no good reason to prevent people photographing what they can see.
Ever.
That would depend where they are when they do it. If for instance they had breached a cordon in order to do so......
But this guy doesn't appear to have breached a cordon - and TBF, these days of image enhancement and super-long lenses, you can count the pubic hairs on fly in a picture taken from miles away
He was also a Press Photographer and as such he and his employer would have been bound by a Code of Conduct - You know, Like ACPO issue for .............
BB
As usual we don't have the full details to make an informed judgement on whether he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, or his rights have been infringed. There is due process to sort that out either way.
There is little point in us arguing one way or the other about individual cases, when we don't have all the facts.
Being a press photographer makes little difference if he's doing something he shouldn't be doing and as been said already, if he's accepted a caution, he's admitted the offence.
vonhosen said:
BigBob said:
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
chrispy porker said:
And the Police are in the wrong?
How?
Yes.
There seems no good reason to prevent people photographing what they can see.
Ever.
That would depend where they are when they do it. If for instance they had breached a cordon in order to do so......
But this guy doesn't appear to have breached a cordon - and TBF, these days of image enhancement and super-long lenses, you can count the pubic hairs on fly in a picture taken from miles away
He was also a Press Photographer and as such he and his employer would have been bound by a Code of Conduct - You know, Like ACPO issue for .............
BB
As usual we don't have the full details to make an informed judgement on whether he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, or his rights have been infringed. There is due process to sort that out either way.
There is little point in us arguing one way or the other about individual cases, when we don't have all the facts.
Being a press photographer makes little difference if he's doing something he shouldn't be doing and as been said already, if he's accepted a caution, he's admitted the offence (my bold).
Or possibly has been bullied into accepting a police caution ............ Unlikely in this case I know but not unheard of especially with youngsters who don't realise the full implications and think it's easier than fighting their case in Court.
BB
vonhosen said:
if he's doing something he shouldn't be doing and as been said already, if he's accepted a caution, he's admitted the offence.
But what if it wasnt an offence? More than likely he was doing something that he was entitled to be doing, but the officer thought otherwise. As he was actually doing what the officer said he was doing, of course he has accepted the caution and admitted to the offence, why wouldnt you? I could be cautioned and admit to the offence of wearing blue jeans and red socks, but if its not actually an offence, my accepting a caution from and making an admition to a Police officer wouldnt actually make it an offence by default just because I confessed to it.
What next? accusing folks of driving safely within the speed limit and then when they agree the officer goes "Aha, so, you admit it, got you!".
I'll never let press or any other photographers take pictures at the scene of any of my fatal accidents. Ever.
Fatal scenes are treated no differently from any other serious crime scene - you wouldn't expect the Police to allow the press to photograph a murder scene, so why should a fatal accident be any different?
Having photographs of a scene published in a newspaper can compromise numerous aspects of the investigation. Firstly, it's often the case that it takes a while to contact the deceased's immediate family. There are strict rules about how the Police pass this information - it has to be done in person by a Police Officer, and not, for instance, by telephone. I've known it take over a week to trace relatives who may be away on holiday or otherwise un-contactable. If the Police allowed pictures of a crashed car to be published in a newspaper, it could be as bad as publishing the deceased's name, which I'm sure you realise, we never do until family have been informed.
Another reason I never want scene photographs publishing is because I always like to keep something back for the interview. I've known people pay substantial amounts of money to someone else to admit they were the driver following a fatal fail-to-stop accident, and if they haven't seen a picture of the scene, it's far more difficult for them to describe exactly what happened in the accident if they weren't actually there.
Given the same circumstances, if I'd asked this bloke to leave, and he'd refused, then I'd consider that him continuing to take photographs would possibly compromise the investigation and he'd therefore be obstructing me in the execution of my lawful duty.
I don't see anything unfair about the situation whatsoever.
Fatal scenes are treated no differently from any other serious crime scene - you wouldn't expect the Police to allow the press to photograph a murder scene, so why should a fatal accident be any different?
Having photographs of a scene published in a newspaper can compromise numerous aspects of the investigation. Firstly, it's often the case that it takes a while to contact the deceased's immediate family. There are strict rules about how the Police pass this information - it has to be done in person by a Police Officer, and not, for instance, by telephone. I've known it take over a week to trace relatives who may be away on holiday or otherwise un-contactable. If the Police allowed pictures of a crashed car to be published in a newspaper, it could be as bad as publishing the deceased's name, which I'm sure you realise, we never do until family have been informed.
Another reason I never want scene photographs publishing is because I always like to keep something back for the interview. I've known people pay substantial amounts of money to someone else to admit they were the driver following a fatal fail-to-stop accident, and if they haven't seen a picture of the scene, it's far more difficult for them to describe exactly what happened in the accident if they weren't actually there.
Given the same circumstances, if I'd asked this bloke to leave, and he'd refused, then I'd consider that him continuing to take photographs would possibly compromise the investigation and he'd therefore be obstructing me in the execution of my lawful duty.
I don't see anything unfair about the situation whatsoever.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff