Judge warned that anybody present at a riot will be remanded in custody, even if they were only a “curious observer”

[zxzoomy]

The Telegraph reports today: " A judge has warned that anybody present at a riot will be remanded in custody, even if they were only a “curious observer”. District Judge Francis Rafferty said that someone’s presence at a riot made them involved in the riot as he refused two bail applications. The judge spoke as four men appeared in Belfast magistrates’ court charged in relation to disorder in the city."

 

What about photographers trying to report what is happening? I appreciate judges want to deter involvement in disorder but this seems to set an overly strict precedent. 

[zxzoomy]

Exploring this more I found:

 

-in the case above the media report that police suspect an individual was more involved

 

-the law differs in Northern Ireland from rest of UK because of the history but I'm not clear on the differences

 

-for the offence of 'riot' under the Public Order 1986: ' To be guilty of the offence the defendant must be with others who are using or threatening violence and the defendant must have either:

• personally used violence; or
• aided, abetted, counselled or procured the use of violence so as to be jointly liable, e.g. encouraging, planning, directing or coordinating the activities of those involved in violent action.

[IanDavidson]

This is of major concern to me.  While I am fortunate in having a U.K. press pass (increasingly difficult to obtain) some of my photography friends do not.  It would appear that they could be arrested for being a “curious observer”.  How long before legitimate press photographers are arrested?  Just this week, while photographing a police car outside the local mosque; I was harangued by a passer by who said the media was just making things worse.

 

if one was to link this to “announcements” that posting material related to the riots could risk prosecution.  Very 1984…. I have not, as yet, taken any photographs of the disturbances, but I expect to do so.  I often post (without comment) my news photographs.  Will I be subject to a knock at my door and arrest?

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I condemn all forms of violence; but, in a democratic society there must be room for reporting and comment.  I agree misinformation is wrong; but often official statements are, sometimes for good reason, delayed. 
 

One could argue that what is happening is that any material that differs from the official narrative becomes “illegal”.

 

I would also argue, more controversially, that the police; for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration, are sometimes directed to act differently with different groups and protests.  See the reaction of Sir Mark Rowley to the question of two tier policing (he allegedly knocked the microphone out of the hand of the reporter on to the ground; in his statement Sir Mark states it was an accident…) to see it touched a nerve.

 

This is not a political post, but concern about the day to day activities of news photography in the current environment. 

[Lynchpics]

57 minutes ago, IanDavidson said:

if one was to link this to “announcements” that posting material related to the riots could risk prosecution.  Very 1984…. I have not, as yet, taken any photographs of the disturbances, but I expect to do so.  I often post (without comment) my news photographs.  Will I be subject to a knock at my door and arrest?

 

Posting material / comments seems to relate to people posting comments on social media that would incite violence, for example telling people to attack buildings etc. I think many people think that you can post whatever you like on X etc, even if it incites violence etc. Have some people that have been arrested tried to claim that they were just observing what was going on, i would guess the police have footage to prove that that is not the case. 

[MDM]

Arresting photographers and journalists at protests is nothing new and it has got nothing with this ridiculous idea of two tier policing that seems to have taken hold as a meme lately. Are rational people really buying into this? Sad. I wouldn't blame Sir Mark Rowley for getting irritated if that is what happened just having to address such a notion. Just look at the number of police officers who have been injured having to deal with the incredible violence in the recent riots. The police force is depleted enough without having to divert vast numbers of officers to these insane riots and put their lives on the line protecting innocent people. I think anyone will act differently when confronted with violence like this. 

 

The police are not biased toward leftie protesters. How silly. And neither is the law. Some of these so-called lefties have been given very hefty prison sentences recently.

 

And for what it's worth, personally I think Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protests are ridiculous and completely ineffective but they don't physically attack the police or photographers. They want publicity. I absolutely abhor the stuff they have done but they don't attack people. Of course the police will deal differently with that than when confronted by violent thugs who are intending to cause serious injury or worse. 

 

Here are three links relating to events where photographers at so-called leftie protests were arrested and/or had their gear confiscated in the last few years with interesting outcomes.  

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/just-stop-oil-m25-tom-bowles-b2222021.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/21/hertfordshire-police-admit-unlawfully-arresting-journalist-at-just-stop-oil-protest

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-68305671

 

 

And then there are numerous reports of the terror inflicted on photographers and journalists covering the recent riots. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/article/2024/aug/06/journalists-union-calls-for-action-over-increased-violence-against-news-gatherers#:~:text=One seasoned national news photographer,camera%2C give it here.'

 

Anyone wth any sense would just stay away unless being employed to cover the riots. 

Edited August 10 by MDM

[geogphotos]

Covering this is a job for experienced, professional photo-journalists.

 

Having amateur snappers getting in the way is just causing more problems for the police.

 

Stay away. 

Edited August 10 by geogphotos

[MDM]

And for anyone considering covering riots for news and stock, your business photography insurance (if you have any) will most likely not cover replacing your equipment if it gets stolen or damaged. Civil unrest is usually excluded. 

Edited August 10 by MDM

[Lynchpics]

29 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Having amateur snappers getting in the way is just causing more problems for the police.

 

From my experience, the amateurs tend to be filming with their phone cameras. 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

8 hours ago, IanDavidson said:

I was harangued by a passer by who said the media was just making things worse.

My canned response, regardless of what I know-believe,
would be, “You are correct in some cases,”
as a way to deflect & be able to carry on
with primary objective = new photos…

[sb photos]

19 hours ago, MDM said:

Arresting photographers and journalists at protests is nothing new <sip>

 

Quite right, and whether they have press cards or not. Luckily it's not as bad here as within the USA.  Most here are arrested then de arrested later. The police may have just wanted them out of the way at a busy incident, and sometimes it's said the police didn't want their involvement photographed. When kit has been held for long periods and worse large settlements have been later paid to the photographer. Ether way I'm pretty sure the judge quoted is treading on dodgy ground as current law doesn't match his comment as quoted on this forum.

[Lynchpics]

7 minutes ago, sb photos said:

Ether way I'm pretty sure the judge quoted is treading on dodgy ground as current law doesn't match his comment as quoted on this forum.

 

From another site that is talking about the judge and what was said.  

This has been posted on a different thread as well and the point I made on that one is that what the District Judge said has been taken out of context.

He was not necessarily saying that an innocent member of the public who happened upon the riots by accident would be banged up.

In this instance, the defendants had actively sought out the riot and, although not actively engaged in the riot, the DJ was saying their presence exacerbated the situation and therefore they played their part in it that way.

In short, they were not innocents abroad and would get no leeway.

Am a criminal solicitor, just not in NI, and that’s my reading of what he was getting at.