- Messages
- 1,668
- Name
- Malc
- Edit My Images
- No
Send them copies of your shots and ask if they want them for publicity purposes...
Photographing a "Prohibited Place"???
- Thread starter snerkler
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,831
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
I disagree, it all centres around the 'intent', they still have to prove that you're not some random member of the public taking a quick picture but in fact performing some kind of recon for acts of terrorism.
Public vs. Private Land: Standing on a public pavement or public space and taking a photo of a building's exterior is legal. "Prohibited buildings" (such as military bases, government intelligence buildings, or critical infrastructure) often try to deter photography, and security guards or police may approach you to ask what you are doing, but merely capturing an exterior shot from public land is not an automatic crime unless coupled with suspicious or preparatory terrorist intent.
Correct, however don't forget this:
The Mens Rea (Knowledge) requirement: For related offenses involving prohibited places, there must generally be an intent or reasonable knowledge that the activity is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom
I don't disagree with you, and I would definitely not be the one to try and push this by taking pictures of these prohibited places
In pactical terms this is about the authorities being able to use this as a means to intervene with what you are doing and then investigate on the basis that they reasonably suspect you are up to something. So if it turns out you were not up to mischief but they had reasonable grounds to be suspicious then they were .... just doing their job.
.
I think the recent Fairford incident gives an example of some aspects of this - noting that the after the initial quite heavy handed intervention that the police actually released the individuals concerned within a day or so - and then followed up and there were subsequent arrests.
My inclination like yours is not to push it - you might well be within your rights but escalation is not in your interest.
The problem is that while your 'intent' is established it may turn your nice day into an interestingly bad day.
And being inadvertently arrested may have some downstream consequences even if here are no charges - eg. US ESTA (or the previous visa waiver programme) for travelling to US without a full blown visa.
The act says this:
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)accesses, enters, inspects, passes over or under, approaches or is in the vicinity of a prohibited place, or
(ii)causes an unmanned vehicle or device to access, enter, inspect, pass over or under, approach or be in the vicinity of a prohibited place, and
(b)that conduct is for a purpose that the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
(2)In subsection (1)(a) a reference to inspecting a prohibited place includes—
(a)taking, or procuring the taking of, photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place;
(b)inspecting photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place.
In which case photographing a prohibited place and sharing that online could be construed as publicising the location of a potential terrorist target. Not worth getting into an argument over.
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)accesses, enters, inspects, passes over or under, approaches or is in the vicinity of a prohibited place, or
(ii)causes an unmanned vehicle or device to access, enter, inspect, pass over or under, approach or be in the vicinity of a prohibited place, and
(b)that conduct is for a purpose that the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
(2)In subsection (1)(a) a reference to inspecting a prohibited place includes—
(a)taking, or procuring the taking of, photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place;
(b)inspecting photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place.
In which case photographing a prohibited place and sharing that online could be construed as publicising the location of a potential terrorist target. Not worth getting into an argument over.
- Messages
- 1,831
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep, agree completely, and which is why I said in my very first response, I would just carry on walking and not bother.
- Messages
- 1,831
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Agree, it's just not worth it. Because let's be honest, if they want to get you they will
- Messages
- 2,916
- Edit My Images
- No
Not true, You could be arrested if you were still on the public highway and were caught taking photographs "into the establishment" but that is from this legistration
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpg...ng-and-inspecting-places-used-for-defence-etc
OP
- Messages
- 27,064
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 45,530
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Section 5 is headed "Unauthorised entry etc to a prohibited place" and states including, "accesses, enters, inspects or passes over or under a prohibited place".
Regarding 'inspects' it further states, "reference to inspecting a prohibited place includes taking, or procuring the taking of, photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place."
Bearing in mind that the main heading refers to "entry", it is certainly not at all clear that taking photos of what is visible from a public road would contravene the Act.
In the unlikely event that proceedings were taken, it would be for a court to decide.