Section 44 was not mentioned by the police in Jules Mattsson’s audio. That’s the problem. They mentioned no known law and section, with the possible exception of “breach of the peace”, which is at least an offence, though he didn’t commit it.

Further, section 44 makes no mention of photography whatever. It is used to stop and search, but it’s got nothing to do with photography. There seems to be some myth that it has, even put about by Paul Lewis in The Guardian.

I challenged him about this and he pretended to know already and said his whole point was that section 44 had nothing to do with photography. But that’s not what he said in his article.

Why does it matter? Well, it matters because section 44 can be repealed and nothing need change for photographers. Pinning all your hopes on section 44 is therefore a mistake.

A bigger problem is the whole Terrorism Act 2000 itself. It creates the offence of “preparing” a terrorist act, not just instigating or committing one. The problem here is that the only difference between preparing and not preparing is the intention in your mind. The TA2000 thus criminalised certain varieties of thought. Only actual harm should be criminalised.

This is the heart of the problem, not just section 44.

A bigger problem still, of course, is the seeming ability of the police to act outside the law altogether, without any constitutional means of redress for the victim. If they do this, and continue to get away with it, you can forget the criminal law altogether. It simply becomes irrelevant.

Best Wishes,
Stephen