Summary of the discussions held on filming or photography at protests in Conway Hall, London.

Here is the feedback from the Legal Observer Group that discussed the role and possibility of video activism within Legal Observing and the protest movement. Please do not hesitate to give me any feedback on this as the debate is in no way closed. With apologies for the delay.

Please note that you have not been added to the general Legal Observer Group meeting mailings. This group will continue to meet until around June in order to discuss the issues necessary to drafting a formal proposal to set up a permanent funded legal observer group for England and Wales. This proposal will then be put to a wider meeting sometime in June or July at which any final decision as to whether to film as part of legal observing will be taken. If it is taken then, in addition to the Legal Observer Project, it is also hoped that a Video Activism parallel project will also be set up. I will let you know when this meeting will take place nearer the time. However, you will not receive any further details of the other issues. If you wish to do so, then please drop me a line.

Summary of the discussions held on filming or photography at protests

Utility of filming/photography

The utility of filming and photography in the context of legal observing was not in dispute. To recap on what was said in the discussion piece and reiterated at the meeting:

Filming, and to a lesser extent photography, provides one of the best sources of evidence to be used in the defence of protesters charged with criminal offences. More importantly, perhaps, film is also one of the best sources of evidence for use in complaints or litigation brought by protesters, where the burden of proof is then on the protesters. The presence of cameras therefore also has a deterrent effect on the Police. Equally important, exposure of the abusive use of power or of the law through the media, the Internet or more selective channels of communication can be effective in discrediting the Police and countering some of the anti-protest propaganda.

Proposal

To set up a group with the aim of acquiring footage from protests to assist in the defence of protesters, in civil claims against the police or similar actions and in exposing the abusive use of power and the law in the repression of protest and protesters through the media, mainstream or otherwise.

The group could both act as a liason between and central contact point for the legal observer group and those with footage of protests, as well as trying to obtain footage of its own. Given the risks of the project, it would operate independently of the legal observer group but would work closely with it.

Problems & Suggested Solutions

Police Harassment

The police have various powers to stop, search and confiscate items, both under the existing Stop & Search Laws and under the proposed Terrorism Bill. The experience of many journalists however is that they will arrest people and confiscate equipment or film regardless of their actual powers. The perceived intention is to prevent journalists meeting their copy deadlines and to discourage and prevent potentially unfriendly coverage. This poses the added problem for those filming in order to assist with Legal Observing that any incriminating footage seized could then be used by the police.

There are a number of ways in which camera operators can minimise the risks of police harassment or the consequences of it:

1. Using a look-out, such as a legal observer, both to look out for incidents to film and to look out for possible trouble from the police. Such an individual could also act as an independent observer in case of any harassment. An alternative is for camera operators to cover each other. One camera operator goes in close whilst another one stands further back away from the police in order to gather any evidence of any harassment of the first operator by the police. Both techniques can be effective but are of limited value since they rely entirely on their deterrent potential. Although they also enable subsequent legal actions to be brought for wrongful arrest, criminal damage and trespass to goods this does little to address the problem outlined above.

2. Concentrating on filming the police rather than protesters. Legal Observers, and therefore those that film in that capacity, effectively act as evidence gatherers for protesters. Their attention is consequently focussed on the Police. However, it would be naïve to think that they would therefore be able to avoid catching action that incriminates protesters altogether. In addition, the context of any arrest or illegal action by the police is important material evidence for use in civil claims or criminal defence. Consequently, although legal observers can, to a limited extent, provide the required contextual evidence, for video evidence to be effective in Court it ideally needs to record the actions of protesters as well.

3. Using runners or bikers to get film away or, better still, micro-waving film immediately off-site. With the use of digital cameras & mobile phones, micro-waving isn¹t particularly technologically challenging though it is somewhat expensive. The advent of GSM2 phones, capable of sending digital data as micro-waves over a number of Œlines¹ will significantly bring down the cost and ease with which this can be done. For getting film away from the Police this is by far the best technique though even micro-waving still carries some potential risk of interception. Data encryption using strong encryption would make the process secure but it may not be legally possible to use it for much longer. Nevertheless, since the primary aim of the Police is not so much to use the footage as to prevent others using it the actual risk of micro-waving may be incredibly small.

4. Filming covertly or from a sufficiently inaccessible vantage point overcomes some of the problems of police harassment but is subject to problems of its own. Filming from an inaccessible vantage point can only be effective in certain rare circumstances: where the protest is more or less static, where a vantage point gives good views of the action, where the camera operator has a sufficiently powerful zoom and where the footage can be got away safely. The main disadvantage with covert filming is that it loses its deterrent effect. In addition, it is not something to be undertaken without the complete trust of the protesters.

It may be that these techniques used in combination according to the circumstances provides the best response to police harassment.

Use of Incriminating Material in Court

Whether it be as a result of disclosure in a Court case or as a result of a Court Order it may be difficult to prevent incriminating footage falling into the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service.

However, there currently exists a mechanism for putting material at risk out of the jurisdiction of the UK Courts and it is suggested that any problematic footage be dealt with in that way:

All rights to the footage should be assigned to the International Federation of Journalists in Brussels and sent there.