Prosecution argued that real-time coverage of trial of Alex Midette could prejudice case, but Judge Lael Montgomery has given the go ahead for laptops and mobiles to be used in court.
“I think there are other manageable options and less restrictive options than shutting down the flow of information during the trial,” she is reported to have said, adding that jurors and witnesses would be informed not to read news reports about the trial.
As reported by theregister.co.uk and the British Journal of Photography, new terrorism guidance for police officers has been issued. The National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) has released its update ‘Practice Advice’ on stop-and-search powers, with reference to the Terrorism Act 2000.
The advice includes guidance for police officers on how to deal with photographers, but is not final. It has now been circulated to forces for final comments. After further consulatation it will need to be endorsed by the Assosiation of Chief Police Offices. (ACPO) [information courtesy of photojournalist Marc Vallée]
This announcement follows up from Marc Vallée’s assessment of the situation here and here.
The guidance:
“The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented by other legislation.
“If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film.
“Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.
“Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search and images may be viewed as part of a search.”
Marc Vallée asks on his blog:
“What is going on here? Does Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 override the long held journalistic protection of Special Procedure Material under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)?
“As an article on the EPUK website put it last year: ‘Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, material such as a journalist’s notes, photographs, computer files or tapes are classified as Special Procedure Material, which have a higher level of protection than ordinary possessions.’
“Which means if the police want to look at such material then they would have to go in front of a judge and explain why.”
Pictured: A press photographer files images on the move as environmental activists march from the Camp for Climate Action to Kingsnorth Power Station Hoo, Kent, England on Saturday August 9 2008. 2,000 campaigners marched on the Power Station with the aim to shut it down for the day. (Photo Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2008.
In the meantime, until further information is obtained, Ray Mincoff, the NUJ legal editor, has issued this statement:
“We welcome the publication of unequivocal guidance showing that the Terrorism Act does not prohibit the taking of photographs in public places.
“The authorities must now ensure that police officers are aware of the limits to their powers. It must also be made crystal clear that the right to seize film and memory cards can only be used in the very exceptional circumstances where there are strong grounds for suspecting someone of being a terrorist.
“If section 43 of the Act ends up being casually used by officers in the same slapdash manner as other parts of the legislation, it would seriously inhibit the ability of journalists to work in our cities. The police cannot routinely use anti-terror or other legislation to stop journalists in their lawful and proper work. Neither must they see these guidelines as a green light to seize journalistic material, the special nature of which is recognised by law.
“We will also be looking carefully at other aspects of the guidelines to assess other possible effects on civil liberties and the free press.”
UPDATE:
Marc Vallée wrote to the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA).
“Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, material such as a journalist’s notes, photographs, computer files or tapes are classified as Special Procedure Material, which have a higher level of protection than ordinary possessions,” he wrote.
“What is the view of the NPIA on this in the context of stop-and-search powers like S43? Could a UK Press Card carrying photographer use Special Procedure Material to stop or limit the scope of a stop-and-search under S43? or S44?”
They responded:
“There has been no change to the law. These guidelines remind officers that they can only stop-and-search photographers in exceptional cases where they believe they are involved in some kind of terrorist information gathering activity.”
UPDATE TWO (02/12/08): the NPIA has now added this statement:
“The Practice Advice makes it clear that there has been no change in the law. Journalist material will continue to enjoy the higher level of protection offered under PACE.
“For example, if a police officer suspects that photographs are being taken as part of terrorist information gathering they will rightly investigate. But once the stopped person makes it clear that they are a journalist then this will usually reassure police that they have legitimate reasons for taking photographs.”
After ruling that press and public would be banned from the courtroom for the Anna Politkovskaya murder trial, the Moscow military court has now said that the trial will be open after all, RSF reports. You can also follow Luke Harding at the Guardian. ‘We may actually see the judge firing himself,’ he reports in this this short audio clip.
Reversing his earlier decision, the judge ordered a closed court for the trial of three men accused of killing journalist Anna Politkovskaya, saying that there were concerns for the safety of the jury, reports the Moscow Times.
‘Dacre never dares face his critics, happy to fry alive all and sundry, never apologising, never explaining’, writes Polly Toynbee in the Guardian.
Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has caused some controversy this morning after last night’s opening speech at the Society of Editors annual conference – leading to discussion on the Today programme – and widespread media coverage.
He says it is undemocratic that Justice Eady has repeatedly used the privacy law to prevent newspaper coverage of certain issues: he says the High Court judge has brought a privacy law in through the back door. Furthermore, he says it undermines newspaper sales…
“The British press is having a privacy law imposed on it, which apart from allowing the corrupt and the crooked to sleep easily in their beds is, I would argue, undermining the ability of mass-circulation newspapers to sell newspapers in an ever more difficult market.”
Read the full speech here, or a report from the conference here. You can follow @journalism_live on Twitter for more updates from Bristol. So… it’s over to you: click through to vote in our poll:
Continue reading
A report from Africa’s Independent Review Commission (IREC), which was set up to investigate last year’s disputed presidential elections in Kenya, has cleared the country’s media of professional malpractice in its coverage of the election results, and blamed the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) and politicians of delaying results at grassroots level.
The commission, which has trashed claims of rigging and alteration of presidential results at the National Tally Centre – the main complaint of the opposition, also dismissed concerns over the media’s role in the post-election violence raised by international observers, including the European Union, as overly reliant on hearsay.
IREC – headed by retired South African Judge Johann Kriegler – recommended that the media should be fed results electronically to increase speed and that a secure line of transmitting results from village polling stations to the headquarters be developed with an access password for all media houses.
“The media was under pressure to relay results, politicians and the electoral commission of Kenya delayed the numbers, the media had no choice but to report what they had, you cannot blame the beast if you have not fed it,” reads the report.
However, the report did find fault with vernacular media stations for fuelling tension after the announcement of the election results and called for a review of employment policies in media houses. “Only professionals should be employed,” it said.
“How can you blame the media when politicians forced their way into the press centre and took over the role of the ECK at a time when there was[sic] information gaps?” asked the 117-page report.
Within the next 15 days another report on the media’s handling of the elections is expected to be presented to President Mwai Kibaki and former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, who was chief mediator in the post-election crisis.
The report is expected to name, shame and recommend crucial steps that politicians, the media and the ECK should take to avoid a repeat of such violence in future.
The news that video-sharing site Veoh have won their copyright case could set a precedent for similar sites, according to a host of bloggers today.
In a legal analysis by the Electric Frontier Foundation, Fred von Lohmann writes: “the ruling should be required reading for the executives of every ‘Web 2.0’ business that relies on ‘user-generated content.”
On Wednesday a US District court judge ruled that the site qualified for protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and could not be sued for copyright infringement.
The adult video site Io Group were suing on grounds that Veoh violated its copyright in 2006 when the site showed user-uploaded clips from 10 of the company’s films. However, Veoh was found to have complied with DMCA guidelines.
A New Zealand judge has banned a website from naming two men charged with murder – despite allowing the pair to be named by newspapers, radio stations and on television.
Judge David Harvey has raised concerns about the ‘viral effect of digital publication’ and the public searching for information online in the build up to the trial.
Justice Eady, the judge who awarded Max Mosley damages in his privacy case against the News of the World, has blocked a contributor from suing an online forum.
The decision, which places a civil restraint order on Nigel Smith, ends 37 sets of libel proceedings launched by Smith against other forum users and the ADVFN forum itself.