During the afternoon of the 5 October 2016, my client Mario Lanzoni had decided to take a series of photographs in Havelock Square, Swindon, in order to document the diverse life and times of Swindon, putting into practice what he had learnt in a workshop on street photography he had attended in New York just a few weeks before.
Mario was stood centrally in Havelock Square, being nothing but conspicuous when he observed a woman and child merge in a crowd of other members of the public who were going about their ordinary, everyday activities and took a series of photographs.
A short time later, Mario was approached by a Security Officer and informed that he was in fact not permitted to take photographs.
Mario, confident of his legal position, politely retorted that as he was in a public area, he was perfectly entitled to take such photographs.
Discussion then followed as to whether the area in which Mario was situated constituted a public space, the Security Officer insisting that the area was owned/controlled by the Company he served.
Given that the situation appeared to Mario to be reaching an impasse, he invited the Security Officer to contact Wiltshire Police.
During this discussion with the Security Officer, it was disclosed that the woman he had photographed had expressed concerns as to Mario’s activities.
By coincidence, an off-duty Police Officer, PC Butlers was present at the scene. My client spoke with PC Butlers, showing the photographs he had taken, whereupon PC Butlers confirmed to my client that his action had been completely lawful.
As the situation continued, a female representative of the Street Smart Initiative (Beth Simpson of Swindon Anti-Social Behaviour Unit) arrived and spoke with my client.
My client reiterated his position as before and volunteered the photographs he had taken to the Street Smart representative.
My client was repeatedly asked by Ms Simpson to delete the photograph from his camera but as it was anticipated that the Police would shortly be in attendance, my client did not feel comfortable in deleting any photographs, should it be suggested that he had destroyed potential evidence.
Shortly thereafter, two uniformed officers, PC Cassidy and PC Brown arrived at the scene.
Upon request, Mario provided his personal details to the Officers, explained his actions and showed the photographs contained on his camera.
Notwithstanding Mario’s response, PC Cassidy informed Mario that he was now under arrest for an offence contrary to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 because his activities had caused distress to the woman he had photographed and hence his arrest was justified.
Mario was then taken into custody. Following process, he was placed in a cell. After a while, the Duty Solicitor attended who asserted that the offence for which Mario had been arrested had not been made out and that it was no longer lawful for detention to continue and that no further action should result. The Custody Sergeant agreed and Mario was immediately released.
Mario brought a claim for unlawful arrest and received a compensation award of £6,000 plus costs.
All names changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.