THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1979 Cameras at demonstrations

Press, 27 August 1979, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1979 Cameras at demonstrations

The police have not yet satisfied objectors to the taking of films of demonstrations. The complaint against the use by the police of cameras to observe such events fits a fairly common aversion to the enlargement of official records of citizens’ activities. When the police go about the job of filming a demonstration inconspicuously, or even surreptitiously, the significance of the filming is likely to arouse all the more suspicion. Provided that the police feel that they have sufficient reason to go to this length, the best move is to ensure that everyone knows that filming is part of police surveillance. No law forbids the taking of photographs of demonstrations in public places. In fact, demonstrators usually want to attract the greatest possible public attention and the cameras of newspapers and television are usually welcome insurance that a demonstration will be noticed. In the event of these cameras recording an incident that leads to prosecution, the police can use the law to require the release of pictures for use as evidence in the courts; defendants have the same recourse to the law if they want to call on photographic evidence to support their case. Demonstrators themselves may elect to film a protest march or assembly, and they are equally capable of using the film to support their case if an incident happens to end in court charges. Such evidence may be a great deal more persuasive than evidence recorded in a police notebook and more

certain than the recollection of a constable in the witness box.

Disputes have often arisen in the past over outbreaks of violence at demonstrations, including altercations between the police and demonstrators; charges of provocations and excessive force have been made by both sides. The likelihood of filmed surveillance may be a restraining influence; and that is all to the good. Over-enthusiastic policemen will hardly want their own excesses to go on record—anyone’s filmed record; demonstrators are likely to feel the same inhibition. The use of cameras is no novelty and there are good reasons why they should continue to be used if they detect and record offences and make more certain the conduct of any inquiry afterwards. The people most likely to want none of the practice are those who do not want disorder or excessive use of force to be observed and recorded. So long as an assembly is lawful there should be no risk in being seen to be part of it. If demonstrators do not want to be seen, there is not much point to public demonstration. If there are dangers in the photographing of demonstrations, the dangers lie mostly in the selectivity that is possible in using a camera. Activity left out of a film may be more important than what is shown; but photographs cannot show what did not happen: they cannot be used to identify people who were not there. The camera can fairly be accepted, as it has long been accepted, as a routine tool in police work.