Photographing police
One of the over 200 police officers at the APEC 2007 protests who refused to wear identification badges trying to stop a photographer from taking his photograph. Prominent media coverage and a complaint about the "anonymous" police led to no change. The Ethical Standards Department declined to investigate individual officers, the Ombudsman's office has refused to publicly comment, but the Commissioner of Police gave made a promise that all police officers would wear badges in the future (a promise which is routinely breached in practice). Police routinely do not wear badges at political protests and patrolling in some areas of Sydney. The immediate supervisors, the Commission of Police and the Ombudsman's Office seem to turn a blind eye.
Hint: taking a photograph of a police officer may lead to you be arrested on trumped up charges or bashed. It's a good idea to take photos when there are others around, or others around who can film you in case of you being assaulted. If at a protest, stay in the middle of the group, and be aware that you may be assaulted at the end of the protest. If you have film of police misbehaviour, it may be an idea to give it to another person so that it will not be taken off you.
A picture paints a thousand words and can play an important role at protests.
Good photos or video can
- support the defence case for a person charged with a criminal offence.
- provide evidence to support a complaint.
- be given to the media for publicity.
- to be used to help bring claims for compensation.
- encourage the police to behave properly.
For the above reasons, many police officers do not like being photographed. However, you are within your rights to film or video police at protests. Copwatchers and others have been threatened with arrest for taking photos and on one occasion a police officer tried to snatch a camera away from a Copwatcher's hands. Another police officer has requested that film be deleted and not publicised. The police have no powers to do this.
This issue was referred to in the Ombudsman's Report 2007-2008. Case study 40 on page 103 of the Report dealt with a situation where a young man was detained by police till he deleted a photograph from his phone camera. The Ombudsman identified "an error of law" and "as a result, a memo was distributed throughout the command involved reminding police that it is not an offence to take photographs of police in the execution of their duties."
See Street Photographers' Rights at the Arts Law Centre of Australia website for more information. Despite the law being clear, police officers often say otherwise.
Audiorecording conversations with the police
Given the level of hostility shown by the police at times towards protesters, it is not surprising that individuals may wish to audiorecord their conversations with the police. The police will routinely say that this is "against the law" and threaten immediate arrest if the audio-recording equipment is not turned off.
Section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act makes it an offence to audiorecord conversations without a person's permission in some circumstances. Readers will need to gain their own legal advice, but it seems unlikely that this applies to conversations with police officers. Section 7 only makes it an offence to record a "private conversation" and it is difficult to see how having a conversation with a public official in a public place can be "private." Also, knowing that the audiorecording device is present (and still speaking) can be taken as implied consent to be recorded (for example, journalists do not ask for "permission" to audiorecord, they simply present a microphone and ask a question). Additionally, section 7(3) provides defences in relation to those persons who record where it is reasonably necessary for the proteection of "lawful interests" and section 7(3) further provides that the audiorecording is not made for the purppose of "communicating" the conversation to another person.
It seems to this author that audiorecording a conversation with a police officer (where the police officer does not want this to happen) is not against the law. However, this author has some doubt on the issue as (to his knowledge, at least) it has not been tested in court. It is not known if any such recorded conversations have led to any arrests at protests in Sydney in the last 12 years. NOTE, however, that standing your ground too aggressively with a police officer may simply mean that the police officer believes you have failed the "attitude test" and he or she may arrest you on an unrelated (even fictional) matter.
Also note that it is an offence under s60C Crimes Act to collect information about an officer (a photograph?) with the intention of using that information to assault, stalk, harass, intimidate or otherwise harm that person. Clearly, collecting information like a photo of misbehaviour to pass on to the proper authorities would not be an offence. To this author's knowledge, no protester has been charged with this offence in the last 12 years.
It's also worth bearing in mind that there are special restrictions on even having a camera with some defence force facilities (see s17 Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 Cth)) and official secrets (ss75-85D Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)). This might arise if there were a protest at a facility such as the Sydney University Regiment in City Road, Sydney. It is not known if this law has ever been used at a protest in Sydney in recent years.
Videorecording the police
There are no special laws about videorecording the police. The laws discussed (above) apply in relation to photographing the police (and audiorecording the police, if the videocam does both visual and audio).
Police officers in Australia and similar countries have used force against those photographing them.
One of the over 200 police officers at the APEC 2007 protests who refused to wear identification badges trying to stop a photographer from taking his photograph. Prominent media coverage and a complaint about the "anonymous" police led to no change. The Ethical Standards Department declined to investigate individual officers, the Ombudsman's office has refused to publicly comment, but the Commissioner of Police gave made a promise that all police officers would wear badges in the future (a promise which is routinely breached in practice). Police routinely do not wear badges at political protests and patrolling in some areas of Sydney. The immediate supervisors, the Commission of Police and the Ombudsman's Office seem to turn a blind eye.
Hint: taking a photograph of a police officer may lead to you be arrested on trumped up charges or bashed. It's a good idea to take photos when there are others around, or others around who can film you in case of you being assaulted. If at a protest, stay in the middle of the group, and be aware that you may be assaulted at the end of the protest. If you have film of police misbehaviour, it may be an idea to give it to another person so that it will not be taken off you.
A picture paints a thousand words and can play an important role at protests.
Good photos or video can
- support the defence case for a person charged with a criminal offence.
- provide evidence to support a complaint.
- be given to the media for publicity.
- to be used to help bring claims for compensation.
- encourage the police to behave properly.
For the above reasons, many police officers do not like being photographed. However, you are within your rights to film or video police at protests. Copwatchers and others have been threatened with arrest for taking photos and on one occasion a police officer tried to snatch a camera away from a Copwatcher's hands. Another police officer has requested that film be deleted and not publicised. The police have no powers to do this.
This issue was referred to in the Ombudsman's Report 2007-2008. Case study 40 on page 103 of the Report dealt with a situation where a young man was detained by police till he deleted a photograph from his phone camera. The Ombudsman identified "an error of law" and "as a result, a memo was distributed throughout the command involved reminding police that it is not an offence to take photographs of police in the execution of their duties."
See Street Photographers' Rights at the Arts Law Centre of Australia website for more information. Despite the law being clear, police officers often say otherwise.
Audiorecording conversations with the police
Given the level of hostility shown by the police at times towards protesters, it is not surprising that individuals may wish to audiorecord their conversations with the police. The police will routinely say that this is "against the law" and threaten immediate arrest if the audio-recording equipment is not turned off.
Section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act makes it an offence to audiorecord conversations without a person's permission in some circumstances. Readers will need to gain their own legal advice, but it seems unlikely that this applies to conversations with police officers. Section 7 only makes it an offence to record a "private conversation" and it is difficult to see how having a conversation with a public official in a public place can be "private." Also, knowing that the audiorecording device is present (and still speaking) can be taken as implied consent to be recorded (for example, journalists do not ask for "permission" to audiorecord, they simply present a microphone and ask a question). Additionally, section 7(3) provides defences in relation to those persons who record where it is reasonably necessary for the proteection of "lawful interests" and section 7(3) further provides that the audiorecording is not made for the purppose of "communicating" the conversation to another person.
It seems to this author that audiorecording a conversation with a police officer (where the police officer does not want this to happen) is not against the law. However, this author has some doubt on the issue as (to his knowledge, at least) it has not been tested in court. It is not known if any such recorded conversations have led to any arrests at protests in Sydney in the last 12 years. NOTE, however, that standing your ground too aggressively with a police officer may simply mean that the police officer believes you have failed the "attitude test" and he or she may arrest you on an unrelated (even fictional) matter.
Also note that it is an offence under s60C Crimes Act to collect information about an officer (a photograph?) with the intention of using that information to assault, stalk, harass, intimidate or otherwise harm that person. Clearly, collecting information like a photo of misbehaviour to pass on to the proper authorities would not be an offence. To this author's knowledge, no protester has been charged with this offence in the last 12 years.
It's also worth bearing in mind that there are special restrictions on even having a camera with some defence force facilities (see s17 Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 Cth)) and official secrets (ss75-85D Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)). This might arise if there were a protest at a facility such as the Sydney University Regiment in City Road, Sydney. It is not known if this law has ever been used at a protest in Sydney in recent years.
Videorecording the police
There are no special laws about videorecording the police. The laws discussed (above) apply in relation to photographing the police (and audiorecording the police, if the videocam does both visual and audio).
Police officers in Australia and similar countries have used force against those photographing them.
Police Identification
Police forces around the world, such as this London police officer, have shoulder numbers so that individual officers can be easily identified. NSW police officers often wear no identification.
This officer's badge - AB 42 - identifies the officer individually. The "AB" denotes the police station at which the officer is based. An official report into London policing during a protest in 2009 said that "any lack of police identification is an inhibiter to accountability and generates a question mark about the control of staff. This is why, as the MPS [London Metropolitan Police Service] acknowledges, proper identification of all police officers is important, particularly when the use of force is a possibility." The report added that there was "no excuse for police officers failing to display identification" and that those who don't should be dealt with by their supervising officers "swfitly and robustly." NSW police fail to meet these standards.
This NSW police officer is wearing the small blue badge which police officers are required to wear by the Police Regulation 2008. Copwatch regards this as inadequate, as the writing on the badge is too small, and any attempt to get the details by staring closely at the badge may be interpreted by the officer as confrontational behaviour. It is also impossible to read the writing at night or when the officer is moving quickly, as would be the case if the officer were engaged in violence towards an individual.
Even so, police officers regularly fail to wear identification badges or - when it appears that the police will use force - remove their badges. It is routine for police officers to refuse to identify themselves if they are asked for their names. Photographing the police officer for later identification can lead to arrest or threatened arrest (see photographing police). Complaints about any of this will almost always lead to the police refusing to take any action and then for the Ombudsman's office to later state that taking no action is acceptable. Photographs of police misbehaving at protests have been returned to the complainant on the basis that without a name it is not possible to identify the police concerned, as there are over 15,000 police officers in NSW.
Police officers have threatened people with arrest for taking their photographs. In one UK example, two women were held in detention for four days for asking a police officer for his identification.
Police not wear badges at Climate Camp protest: 13 July 2008
An example of the weakness of the Ombudsman's office in relation to following up police officers refusing to wear identification concerned the Newcastle Climate Camp protest on 13 July 2008. On 15 July 2008, Copwatch volunteers made a written complaint (ref C2008 / 5292) with police responding on the 12 November 2008, saying "Your correspondence has been recorded...[but] further investigation or enquiry in this matter is at this time declined..." No further explanation was given. The Ombudsman's office endorsed this course of action, saying in a letter of 27 November 2008 that "I am satisfied that that police have generally handled the complaint effectively and in a timely manner."
Similar complaints and inaction from the police and the Ombudsman's office has occurred in relation to police officers removing their badges during the the anti-Pope protest in July 2008 (ref:C2008/ 5360), and anti-Israeli protest in central Sydney on 29 December 2009 and an anti-Israeli protest on 18 January 2009.
On another occassion, a police officer at a protest refused to show his identification or to give his name. On taking a photograph of this officer, a person was threatened with arrest. A complaint about the threatened arrest (C2009/490) led to no action by police and this inaction was endorsed by the Ombudsman's office. The Ombudsman's office conceded that the police officer's behaviour "may have been inappropriate."
Police officers systematically refuse to wear displayable name-plates on the outside of their yellow vests in apparent breach of Police Regulation 2008. Police Professional Standards, the NSW Ombudsman and the Minister for Police (as of August 2010) refuse to do anything about it.
Further reading
For the approach in the UK, see the official report, see page 9 and elsewhere of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Adapting to Protest 2009. HMSO.
