Citizens and their rights; the demystification of laws

Introduction

I was surfing the internet when I found an interesting footage. It was about a photographer who was holding a professional camera and was taking pictures of the House of Parliament; which is said to be a tourist spot. It was then when a police officer turned up and asked the photographer what he was doing there, in the course of a stop & account. The police officer alleged the section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in order to carry out the questioning. The photographer’s ignorance of his rights, led to his personal details being recorded by the police officer. What was upsetting for the photographer was the fact that his information will be kept in the police data for a period of time (usually no more that a year). According to police this is for the citizen’s protection as well as the police officer’s.  

By viewing this footage, I was impressed by the fact that most citizens are aware of their obligations but have no idea of their rights. I would say that most citizens ignore the laws governing their every day life. Besides, one can say that police officers are misunderstood in the eyes of citizens. Having said that, people seem to be afraid of police while in my opinion the purpose of police’ existence is to make sure that the law is conducted in a proper way and also protect the citizens’ rights. 

Inspired from this footage I intent to discuss some of the rights and obligations of citizens. It is essential to explain that the rights and obligations of citizens are covered by a wide range of legislation, which is impossible to be mentioned in this passage. For that reason I will stick to the laws which surround the footage in question. 

Before I continue,  I will provide some explanations.

The Role of the  Police in Society

In 1829 Sir Richard Mayne wrote: "The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained." Therefore, it is my understanding that Police’ primary role is to prevent crimes, hence protecting citizens from possible dangers. In addition, Police’ another function is to protect the citizens as well as their property. 

However, it is admissible that in order for police to succeed in its aims, the cooperation of the public is substantial; by this I do not mean that citizens have to be afraid of police or that police should have excessive control over people. Furthermore, the state has equipped police with a number of legislations in order to deal with the everyday matters. In my opinion, legislation can also be seen as a balance between the rights of both police and the public. Therefore, this balance protects the citizen’s rights while at the same time police take its steps to prevent crimes. 

Rights and obligations of citizens

The rights and obligations of citizens are defined by legislations. As a general rule, citizens have to act in accordance to legislations in order to avoid breaking the law. However, as long as citizens do not break the law, they are free to do as they wish, without the interference of the state or its authorities (i.e. police). Hence, it is essential for people to know when their obligations end and when their rights start; and the opposite.

To begin with, citizens should know that police can ask questions but the general public are not necessarily required to answer them. The case of Rice v Connelly [1966] supports this rule. Therefore, it is clear now that the photographer had no obligation at all to provide the police officer with an answer, regarding what he was doing. 

Moreover, police can act with the authority given to them by Section 44 of Terrorism Act 2000; which allows the police to stop and search anyone they want, without the need for suspicion, in a designated area.  

However, Chief Constable Andy Trotter, says that "Everyone... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."  Therefore, as taking pictures in a public place is not a crime, a photographer cannot be regarded to be a terrorist.  He added that, "Photographers should be left alone to get on with what they are doing. If an officer is suspicious of them for some reason they can just go up to them and have a chat with them – use old-fashioned policing skills to be frank – rather than using these powers, which we don't want to over-use at all." (Full text can be accessed from here).

At this point I find it necessary to add that a similar case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights where section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was ruled to be illegal. (See the full story here).

I am very curious to see whether any reforms will follow after this ruling. 

At this stage, I would like to refer to the differences between a stop and search under Terrorism Act and Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). 

Section 1 of PACE provides that Police can stop and search any person for stolen or prohibited articles. However, there is a restriction to this as Section 1(3) clearly states that police must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find stolen or prohibited articles, in order to conduct such a search.

Meanwhile, reasonable grounds cannot be personal factors such as race, sex or previous convictions (Code of Practice A 2.2-2.11). Reasonable grounds should be objective factors which are explicable to a third party (case which supports this: O’Hara v CC RUC) and may include things like, suspects behaviour coupled with accurate and current intelligence or information (Code of Practice A 2.9). Therefore, it is clear that police did not have any reasonable grounds in order to justify a stop and search to a photographer.

Conclusion                 

To sum up, I believe that section 44 of Terrorism Act 2000 needs reform as it violates fundamental human rights. In my opinion, a possible reform could be to restrict the power of police to stop and search tactlessly by adding the requirement of reasonable grounds. In this way, the Act will be in compliance to the Human Rights and also will help to avoid incidents like the one I mentioned earlier. In my view, PACE harmonizes the protection of citizen’s rights with the police efforts to maintain the order.   

Please note that the above discussion is only an observation from my perspective.  

P.s You can also see a similar footage here.

Stamatia Kondyli