Police Arrest Photographer...

[Whiternoise]

On the other hand, if i'd taken a picture of my kid on a ride and they made me delete it, how would they then charge me with paedophilia? They've just destroyed any evidence...

Do any pro togs carry around cards with the law regarding this sort of stuff? I certainly might consider laminating something and sticking it in my sling next time I go taking pictures.

[santa claus]

That poor child. He'll be teased mercilessly for riding Jasper from behind. The police should have beaten the father up for the ensuing mental cruelty .

[this_is_gav]

If the shopping centre in question is a private property, then it's their right to stop photos being taken. Whether the police can enforce that, be it official or even advisory, I've no idea, but the security staff certainly can.

I'm not pretending it's not completely mad, but that's how it goes.

That said, it's in the Mail, and as such I automatically assume it's either a blatant lie or a highly exaggerated story.

Do any pro togs carry around cards with the law regarding this sort of stuff? I certainly might consider laminating something and sticking it in my sling next time I go taking pictures.

Nope, but then I seldom take public photos now. I'm primarily indoor based (school portraits and other school based shots mainly).

That said, for our school's annual trip to London, I will be taking a card with me. Even though these stories are quite common now, I still think it's a very rare occurrence with some understandably vocal opinions, but it's hardly much hardship to edit a template to suit my needs just in case I am targeted by an over-zealous officer.

The previous 2 years in London no one has batted an eyelid, despite me having 2 DSLRs around my neck and a great big ruck sack which could be FULL OF BOMBS.

[Saracen]

If the shopping centre in question is a private property, then it's their right to stop photos being taken. Whether the police can enforce that, be it official or even advisory, I've no idea, but the security staff certainly can.
.....

If it's private property then you're there with the permission of and under conditions imposed by the property owner. One of those conditions could indeed be "no photography".

Whether private security have any authority to force you to stop taking photos is rather trickier. In direct terms, no they don't. Indirectly, however, if you are breaking the conditions on which you are allowed on private property, then you are trespassing and can be required to leave. Property owners or their agents are allowed to use reasonable force, but only reasonable force, to effect removal. The danger is that if they use force that exceeds "reasonable", then what they are doing will be an assault on the person they use it against, rendering them, at least in theory, subject to arrest and possible conviction.

So they don't have any direct ability to prevent photography but the can require you to leave which amounts to the same end result.

As for the role of the police, trespass, in the absence of other factors, is a civil matter not a police one and they have no authority to act, even to assist removal. Complicating factors would include where the trespass takes place, whether criminal damage occurs and or if there is a likely breach of the peace.

Some locations are exceptions to the general case that trespass is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Obvious examples include many Ministry of Defence properties (like forces bases) and railway property, like rail lines. trespass on that category of property and it is an offence, which gives the police some powers to act. But not in shipping centres.

If police are called to an incident at a shopping centre, then their role will be to prevent a breach of the piece ... and possibly to act if criminal damage, or an assault, occurs.

As centre security can use reasonable force to effect the removal of a trespasser, police will not (or should not, at least) interfere if security do that. They should not interfere to assist the removal itself, as that is acting outside their authority and they become personally liable to accusations of assault if they act without authority as, in the absence of proper authority, they have no more right to manhandle people than any member of the public does, and are subject to the same criminal sanctions (and perhaps internal disciplinary actions too) if they do.

So ..... if security to "enforce" the prevention of photography, a lot will depend on what they do and how they do it. They are allowed to remove people, using reasonable force if necessary, and it follows from that that :-

- police should not interfere directly, but
- the trespasser is subject to arrest if criminal damage occurs, or
- the trespasser may get into the realms of breach of the peace and police may act, but
- security staff may be arrested for assault if they exceed reasonable force.

Of course, the theory and what happens on the ground may vary, especially when it's hard to prove what happened. But as most shopping centres (not to mention a good chunk of the rest of the country) is plastered with CCTV cameras, proving what happened may be easier than in would elsewhere.