Police used terror legislation to stop ex-RAF engineer in Kidlington (From Oxford Mail)
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us
Police used terror legislation to stop ex-RAF engineer in Kidlington
6:30am Wednesday 24th February 2010 in
A MAN who photographed police while he was on a trip to buy fish and chips was searched under legislation designed to stop al-Qaeda bombers.
Stephen Russell, 59, spotted police swarming Kidlington High Street and, as he had his camera with him, he took four photos because it was unusual to see so much action in the centre of the village.
An officer demanded the ex-RAF engineer deleted the photos, but Mr Russell, of Thrupp, refused because it is not illegal to photograph police in a public place.
One officer then searched him. A form handed to Mr Russell after the incident reveals he was searched using powers under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act.
This legislation gives officers the power to stop and search a suspect ‘they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist’.
Mr Russell said: “They told me to delete the photos and I said ‘no’.
“It is not illegal and he should have known it is not illegal.
“There was nothing wrong with taking photos of police in the street but he would not listen. I thought if I tried to stop him it could turn nasty.”
Mr Russell, a boatman known locally as Maffi, turned out his pockets and the officer used his bank card to carry out an identification and criminal records check.
When the details came back clear, Mr Russell demanded paperwork for the stop-and-search.
The form says Mr Russell was stopped for ‘taking pictures on High Street, Kidlington, of police. Refused all details. Not recognised by officers’.
It names Pc Steve Burchett as using Section 43 legislation to carry out the search at 5pm on Wednesday, February 17.
Mr Russell plans to submit a complaint to Thames Valley Police, and added: “He used the Terrorism Act to search me. I’m not a terrorist.”
Home Office figures show 352 people have been stopped and searched under terrorism legislation in the Thames Valley between April 2007 and July last year.
No-one in Oxfordshire has been charged under the Terrorism Act.
In December Andy Trotter, chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Media Advisory Group, wrote to all forces to urge common sense when using the legislation, pointing out everyone has a right to take photos in public places.
Police spokesman Daniel Donovan said officers were called to the High Street at about 4.15pm after a gang hurled a bottle at a woman passer-by. Officers arrived and the louts were told to move on.
Supt Howard Stone said Mr Russell’s incident would only be looked at if a complaint was received.
He added: “If the man who was involved in this incident was not happy with the police officer’s actions then we would advise him to submit an official complaint.”
Last February, hundreds of photographers protested against police harassment outside Scotland Yard. On January 23, a similar protest was held at Trafalgar Square as part of the ‘I’m a photographer not a terrorist’ campaign.
Stewart Gibson, spokesman for the Bureau of Freelance Photography, said: “It is part of common law that it is not illegal to take photos in a public place.
“Unfortunately, because of the way these terrorist laws are being misinterpreted, police are being very heavy-handed.”
Comments(47)
LadyPenelope
says...
8:34am Wed 24 Feb 10
Doesn't portray the police in a very good light... if they can't understand basic rights and laws, they shouldn't be policing.
Phian
says...
8:39am Wed 24 Feb 10
Most of us respect and even admire our Police but this sort of thing does not help.
Harsh@home
says...
9:03am Wed 24 Feb 10
John Yates, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations.
wallingford1
says...
9:06am Wed 24 Feb 10
Police cannot force you to delete your photos, they need a signed court order for that. All you need to give them is some form of ID. They need to prove you're a "terrorist threat" not vice versa.
Know your rights
http://www.sirimo.co
.uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph
otographers-rights-v
2/
newcy
says...
9:52am Wed 24 Feb 10
Pierre My
says...
11:13am Wed 24 Feb 10
js3
says...
11:35am Wed 24 Feb 10
rfr
says...
12:57pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Any One
says...
1:41pm Wed 24 Feb 10
in fact the police were rightly suspicious
we do not in fact know what terroists look ..
they are somewhat dammed if they do and dammed if they do not.......and they would most certainly be criticized and complained about if they only stopped people of a certain ethnicity or because they have a beard, or wear a scarf......
If someone is not doing something wrong, then why not just comply with the police officers request rather than start arguing about your rights.
sappodilla
says...
3:11pm Wed 24 Feb 10
ox123
says...
3:42pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Terrorists come in all colours n looks. Police need to do there job!
Lord Palmerston
says...
4:19pm Wed 24 Feb 10
ox123 wrote:And he didn't come from Ulster or the Republic of Ireland and he wasn't a mulatto, and if you, Ox, can tell the readers of any terrorists who affect the UK who haven't come into your categories or those further categories in the last 10 years then we are waiting.
What's to say this man wasn't a terrorist. Jus because he didn't hav a beard n was white? Terrorists come in all colours n looks. Police need to do there job!
wilfgreen
says...
5:06pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Budowaah
says...
5:26pm Wed 24 Feb 10
The officer WAS legally entitled to perform the search, he had suitable grounds and a justifiable objective. The paperwork was even completed accordingly with HIS NAME ON.
It's a bit of a non-issue I think, not really worth media attention.
Any complaint would probably stem from an abuse of human rights, you know, that law non-sense that everyone always moans about and believes needs to be scapped.
locodogz
says...
5:34pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Lord Palmerston wrote:Depends on your precise definition of 'terrorist' - I've read of many non-irish, non-mulatto animal-libbers whose actions have been classed under the banner of terrorism?
ox123 wrote: What's to say this man wasn't a terrorist. Jus because he didn't hav a beard n was white? Terrorists come in all colours n looks. Police need to do there job!And he didn't come from Ulster or the Republic of Ireland and he wasn't a mulatto, and if you, Ox, can tell the readers of any terrorists who affect the UK who haven't come into your categories or those further categories in the last 10 years then we are waiting.
Oflife
says...
6:55pm Wed 24 Feb 10
J B Blackett
says...
6:56pm Wed 24 Feb 10
.
It's just a microcosm of the current state of British Law and its two opponents - Justice and Common Sense.
.
What a state we're in !
.
I blame the parents of our unbelievable politicians , y'know.
Lord Palmerston
says...
8:55pm Wed 24 Feb 10
alistair001
says...
10:56pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Wiki Wiki Wah
says...
10:56pm Wed 24 Feb 10
ReasonableGuy
says...
11:39pm Wed 24 Feb 10
RTA
says...
12:11am Thu 25 Feb 10
Budowaah wrote:The police officer was *NOT* legally entitled to search this individual... In the video, the officer clearly states that he is going to perform a search under S1 of the PACE Act to obtain the identity of the individual. PACE does not cover this and, under PACE, the officer has to be able to demonstrate Reasonable Suspicion for the search, since the search allows the officer to confirm/reject his suspicion that the individual was involved in the crime that the officer ALREADY suspects him of having committed.
From the limited and probably somewhat bias report here(the truth never sells), it does seem a bit over the top to search a bystander who took pictures under terrorist laws, however...
The officer WAS legally entitled to perform the search, he had suitable grounds and a justifiable objective. The paperwork was even completed accordingly with HIS NAME ON.
It's a bit of a non-issue I think, not really worth media attention.
Any complaint would probably stem from an abuse of human rights, you know, that law non-sense that everyone always moans about and believes needs to be scapped.
Furthermore, under PACE, the subject is not required to provide their name/address/persona
l details during the search. You are only obliged to give your details if arrested, or under the ASBO legislation.
Taking part in photography is not a crime, and it is HIGHLY tenuous to cite a lawful activity, being carried out in a public place in full view as suspicious/illegal.
The request for the individual to delete photos was unlawful. The Police do not have these powers.
The officer, from the above article, then uses the Terrorism Act S.43 (I'm assuming that a S.44 authorisation is not in place). Whilst under a S.44 search the police officer is not required to be able to demonstrate Reasonable Suspicion that the individual is a terrorist before being able to carry out the search, S.43 searches are different. S.43 searches require the officer to be able to provide Reasonable Suspicion that the individual is involved in committing/planning an offence under the Act. Under the NPIA/HomeOffice guidelines, the suspicion MUST be based in prior intelligence, which is obviously not the case here, given that the officer clearly states that he has NEVER seen the individual before.
I would suggest that Stephen Russell file a complaint with the Chief Inspector of TVP, since the officer in the video 1. Made an unlawful demand for the deletion of images, which are private property, 2. Can be seen assaulting Stephen in the video (when trying to search for ID, whilst citing PACE S.1) and 3. Unlawful Detention, given that the officer could not possibly justify the S.43 search.
If the complaint fails, you can try the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Chief Constable is ultimately liable in this case - should you wish to do so, you could sue for all 3 of the above…
I'm not trying to ties the hands of the police, but we live in a democracy with the presumption of innocence (well, mostly). I'm not about to let the terrorists win, by changing the way I live my life, neither am I going to let the Police go beyond the law and, essentially, introduce a police state where they make the rules, not Parliament.
Budowaah
says...
9:36am Thu 25 Feb 10
Still, I can't help but think that this guy was a bit of a loser, being so argumentative and all, some people do just argue with officials because deep down, they have problems with authority and order. (Let's face it guys the 60's are over, and you lost - No more free love, you'll get a virus)
'You can't do that to me, i'm going to get some fish and chips for my tea with a camcorder in my hand (wtf?), I arrived here in a 'friends' car of which details I don't know and am gravitating around some public commosion drawing attention to myself. Oh, what now, I have just been challenged and cannot explain exactly what I am doing and why. Hang on a minute officer, you arn't allowed to be suspicious of me under regulation 1b(i) of the butidontfitastereoty
pe act 2010.
Jees, people like him would be more use in China, there are tanks to be stood infront of.
locodogz
says...
9:39am Thu 25 Feb 10
Lord Palmerston wrote:Given the recent case involving a police officer who left two dogs to die in an over-heated car that's probably not the best analogy to have used!?!? That said - point taken re pedantry - but then you did ask the question!!
good man locodogz, I hadn't thought of that one-he could have been taking pics of police who might boil their police dogs
Floflo
says...
9:51am Thu 25 Feb 10
Maffii
says...
12:43pm Thu 25 Feb 10
For the benefit of the nay sayers: I carry my camera almost everywhere. You never know when a good picture may occur. My camera has a 30 minute video facility.
This officer had no right to treat me the way he did. Gaps in his knowledge of the law are no excuse for this sort of behaviour.
I was simply standing up for my rights . . . . our rights.
Every time we fail to make a stand our rights are eroded.
The police are not infallible I know, but if incidents like this are allowed to pass unquestioned we will all be sorry. Standing in the open in a public high street taking a photo these officers had no reason to suspect me of anything other than taking crap pictures.
wallingford1
says...
2:06pm Thu 25 Feb 10
Spurs and Oxford
says...
3:04pm Thu 25 Feb 10
Wiki Wiki Wah
says...
3:22pm Thu 25 Feb 10
Maffii wrote:Fair play to you mate. The police (this particular officer in particular) abuse their power and the system all too often. Well done for standing your ground.
I served as part of the defence of this nation, freedom, and rights for over 25 years. I have stood on the right end of a gun and I have stood on the wrong end of a gun, I have no passion for either role.
For the benefit of the nay sayers: I carry my camera almost everywhere. You never know when a good picture may occur. My camera has a 30 minute video facility.
This officer had no right to treat me the way he did. Gaps in his knowledge of the law are no excuse for this sort of behaviour.
I was simply standing up for my rights . . . . our rights.
Every time we fail to make a stand our rights are eroded.
The police are not infallible I know, but if incidents like this are allowed to pass unquestioned we will all be sorry. Standing in the open in a public high street taking a photo these officers had no reason to suspect me of anything other than taking crap pictures.
Maffii
says...
4:07pm Thu 25 Feb 10
And what about me 59 years old ex-service being searched in the street like a common yob.
But dont you worry you go watch your football match we will look after your rights.
dazaus
says...
5:25pm Thu 25 Feb 10
Who does this Police Officer think he is, demanding the deletion of the photos?
Please pursue your complaint Mr Russell otherwise they will carry on getting away with this behaviour.
In the V
says...
7:51pm Thu 25 Feb 10
And what about you stood in the street stopping the police from doing their job? What about you stood wasting their time by being obnoxious?
As a former member of the uniformed services I would expect you to understand the need for people to do their job without interference.
To my knowledge this PC has the welfare of his community at heart. Once I heard your nonsense on the video I lost any sympathy for your petty stance at all.
Wiki Wiki Wah
says...
8:01pm Thu 25 Feb 10
g local 10 year olds outside Blockbusters. The man is on a power trip!
Sophia
says...
8:14am Fri 26 Feb 10
Mr Russell gave a polite explanation for what he was doing - going about his private, ordinary life. The police officer never explaiend why he challenged him in the first place, still less why he didnt accept the perfectly sensible explanantion offered, which would have beeen so easy to check.
In fact the officer comes across as slightly mad.
Small wonder surveys show support for the police at an all time low, the majoirty do a good job but are let down by numbheads like PC Burchett
Chris_SCG
says...
1:58pm Fri 26 Feb 10
This jumped up arrogant little prat needs a good ticking off from his superiors, assuming their are any senior police officers left who have the remotest clue about how to do their job with the consent of the public.
pc birdshyte
says...
8:31pm Fri 26 Feb 10
Budowaah wrote:That little **** birdshit (as hes known to the kids in kidlington) is a jumped up little 5 foot arse who trys to make up his lack of inches by harrassing people..he met his match this time,he usually is seen harassing kids...hes a **** of the highest order andi hope he gets demoted..about time **** idiot
From the limited and probably somewhat bias report here(the truth never sells), it does seem a bit over the top to search a bystander who took pictures under terrorist laws, however... The officer WAS legally entitled to perform the search, he had suitable grounds and a justifiable objective. The paperwork was even completed accordingly with HIS NAME ON. It's a bit of a non-issue I think, not really worth media attention. Any complaint would probably stem from an abuse of human rights, you know, that law non-sense that everyone always moans about and believes needs to be scapped.
pc birdshyte
says...
8:39pm Fri 26 Feb 10
In the V wrote:yep you cops stick together eh just like the west midland flying squad did when they fitted up those "IRA" members???????? you conniving little fukwit!!!!!!
"And what about me 59 years old ex-service being searched in the street like a common yob." And what about you stood in the street stopping the police from doing their job? What about you stood wasting their time by being obnoxious? As a former member of the uniformed services I would expect you to understand the need for people to do their job without interference. To my knowledge this PC has the welfare of his community at heart. Once I heard your nonsense on the video I lost any sympathy for your petty stance at all.
Maffii
says...
9:16pm Fri 26 Feb 10
And what about you stood in the street stopping the police from doing their job? What about you stood wasting their time by being obnoxious?<Snip>
You are entitled to say as you please its a FREE country. I am entitled to take photographs in a public place its a FREE country. I didnt stop them doing their job. They chose to waste their time on something they should have known but didn't.
Is it my fault that this officer does not know the law he is paid to uphold.
There were 50+ people in the street doing exactly what I was doing, going about my business and not breaking the law. There were yobs on the street who were breaking the law. they were told to move on. I get searched! This stinks and I will not rest until every offcer in the country is aware that this cannot go on.
If you think FREEDOM is petty then I feel sorry for you. And I feel sad that so many people have given their lives for such an Oaf!
Purlieu
says...
10:56pm Fri 26 Feb 10
Repeat after me ....
First they came for .........
mattoid
says...
11:08pm Sat 27 Feb 10
This kind of thuggery hinders the fight against terrorism.
Maffii
says...
11:34pm Sat 27 Feb 10
In the V
says...
10:15am Sun 28 Feb 10
Seems like you want freedom for yourself to create trouble. Hope you make progress with your victim complex.
Superstar2167
says...
6:05pm Sun 28 Feb 10
Maffii
says...
10:47pm Sun 28 Feb 10
--------------------
--------------------
---
Trivial! You just dont undersatnd the seriousness of this situation and the implications of letting it go. You are entitled to an opinion however wrong you may be.That is one of the freedoms you have. Guard it well, or you may just lose it.
Abingdon Neil
says...
1:55pm Mon 1 Mar 10
British citizens have a legal right to go about their lawful business without being stopped by the Police.
This Police Office does not appear to undertsand the law, specifically the purpose of Section 1 of PACE.
The idea that a Police Officer should be 'suspiscious' of someone simply because they do not recognise them is frightening.
His senior officers should be calling him in and putting him on retraining, regardless of whether any formal complaint is made.
zippymouth
says...
2:02pm Mon 1 Mar 10
Still I would not hold up much hope for any accountability to held against them. It comes to something when the ones breaking the law are the police against innocent people. Don't they realise the damage they are doing to there reputation with this kind of behaviour.
And to those of you who say anyone could be a terrorist. How many terrorists do you this kind of stop and search will actually catch, you are obviously believing the new labour hype and with disastrous consequences.
More News stories
- Youth club hopes to fill the gap
- Islamic centre set to open next year
- Council tax levy frozen again
- Mystery visitor gives town top marks
- Hostels throw open doors to all the homeless
- City sets its sights on Britain in Bloom contest
- VC 10s fly off into the sunset
- Children 'not fed enough'
- School team third in national contest
- Vaccine appeal
Stephen Russell with his camera and the paperwork he was given by the police
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Quentin Walker says...
7:58am Wed 24 Feb 10
It is only illegal to photograph police engaged in anti-terrorist operations.
As the police were investigating yobbery at the time, there was nothing to stop them being photographed whilst in a public place.
It is certainly illegal for police to demand images are deleted.
Notwithstanding Supt Stone's remarks, I'm sure he'll be embarrassed by the actions of his officers and will have 'had a word'.