6 July 2009

The Preacher lashes out in Ainslie? - Police demand RiotACT Editor destroy evidence!

| johnboy
Join the conversation
178

[First filed: July 04, 2009 @ 19:00]

For a couple of weeks now Ainslie residents have been surprised that their shops had a preacher in residence. With long wild black hair and dressed all in black he would stand there addressing no-one in particular making no real sense at all.

The big black headphones clamped over his ears were a particular highlight of the getup. What was he listening to as he preached?

Today at around 4.20 I was having a beer in Edgars when suddenly the street was full of ambulances and police cars.

A little while later a man, covered in blood, was put into the back of one of the ambulances. The scuttlebutt was that he had been stabbed in the neck.

A friend who had been watching proceedings reported that a man was sitting outside Theo’s Takeaway draped in a white sheet.

I popped out to take a quick photograph and noted that the man in the sheet, supervised by police, appeared to be the preacher and was wearing big black headphones.

And here’s the even scarier part:

Returning to the bar I had time to order a pint when a policeman came in and demanded to see the photograph I had taken.

I asked under what power he was making the demand. He replied, as close as I can recall it:

    “If you don’t delete that photograph I will confiscate your camera as evidence”

Now I believe I could have, in all lawfulness, refused him and would, eventually, have won. But I might well have lost the use of the camera for weeks and spent a night in a cell. When police are already making illegal demands that evidence be destroyed taking the quick way out to be able to tell the tale strikes me as the better way to go.

Especially as my understanding is that the delete button on a camera does not actually destroy the image, only make it hard to find. As I type retrieval software is working over the card (and disco, it worked). I deleted the photograph with him watching over my shoulder and then we went for a little browse of my camera checking for other images.

If the photograph was evidence: I had been instructed to destroy it, by a policeman, on threat of being deprived of my property.

If it is not evidence: ACT Policing are illegally ordering the destruction of images they find inconvenient, with the threat of deprivation of property and/or liberty.

I consider both possibilities to be of grave concern.

Either way it suggests police are more than happy to use the threat of confiscation of “evidence” to achieve outcomes they have no legal basis for.

[I should note, however, that the police response in general was extremely swift and effective. Around an hour after the incident the man in the white sheet was quietly and gently placed in the back of a van, and his headphones finally removed.]

UPDATE: The Canberra Times story on this is online. The ABC’s report is also available.

FURTHER UPDATE: The police media release on the incident is now online:

    A 36-year old Ainslie man is assisting police with their inquiries following a stabbing at Ainslie on July 4.

    About 4.30pm police and ambulance officers were called to the Ainslie shops on Edgar Street where a 43-year-old man had received multiple stab wounds to his head and neck area. Paramedics stabilised the man before transporting him to The Canberra Hospital where his condition is listed as serious but stable.

    A man was apprehended at the scene and was treated by ambulance officers for minor injuries to his hand. He is currently being questioned by police.

    AFP Forensics officers are on site and investigations into the incident are continuing.

    Police are appealing for any witnesses to the incident to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

Join the conversation

178
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:15 pm 29 Jan 14

So great that now days we have auto cloud storage.

Another classic moment!

Welcome to the argument……………….3 weeks late

police making threats without a lawful reason? throwing their weight around? never! don’t believe it!

police are always polite, or so we are told 🙂

I am sure the people from Theo’s will be very reassured that they were not the only ones up till all hours that night because of photos. They were not kept up because of any indignation over the violation of their rights, but because the police needed to take photos of what was once their place of business that had now become a crime scene. They did this because they wanted to cooperate with police to ensure that all evidence (including the front door handle) was collected.

The “scary part” of that evening was that an elderly man and a young boy had been witness to an unprovoked frenzied attack. The “scary part” of that evening was a boss seeing this terrible thing happen to an employee. The “scary part” of that evening was that someone was attacked so viciously that put him in intensive care. His prognosis is still not certain. It was heartening that some of you thought of the victim. The fact that someones beer was interrupted to be spoken to by police because of a photo pales in comparison.

Maybe you could spare a thought for the owners of Theo’s too. This is a family run business – thank god none of the young members were there that afternoon. This is an event just the same as if someone came into your home and perpetrated violence against a family member. They were forced to close for the next two days to hire professional crime scene cleaners – although after the comment about the floors finally being clean, maybe they should have slopped around in the blood with mops and buckets as was suggested to them by the police.

Freedom of expression is wonderful – but no-one should lose sight of the impact of these sort of events on people’s lives.

Matty Sullivan12:28 am 08 Jul 09

vg said :

Matty

Lets just say my 20 years of actually being a cop means I know a little more about this than you. You are not the appropriate person to try and be speaking with any ilk of authority on matters legal here.

Leave it alone, you are punching well above your weight, all good intentions aside

Then the matter is dropped.

@JB: I still maintain that the Officer made the right decision in regard to victim/offender identity protection. I also believe he acted with discretion and appropriately.

As weird as it may seem, I like The Preacher and have been feeling quite sorry for him the past week. I really hope he’s given the medical and psychiatric help he needs. I liked his harmless, less than in-your-face style and even thought he was becoming a bit of a Canberra institution. I can’t help but think the victim goaded him somewhat but that’s yet to be established.

I still can’t see anything wrong with JB’s angle though.

Ah Johnboy, next time make sure you’ve got a pair of these: http://digitalcameras.techfresh.net/covert-spy-camcorder-sunglasses/

“And here’s the even scarier part:

Returning to the bar I had time to order a pint when a policeman came in and demanded to see the photograph I had taken.”

how is that an even scarier part???? wasn’t a man just stabbed in the neck at the local shops???

He’s had bail refused. Or to be more accurate, he didn’t apply and it wasn’t offered.

Any photos of the Preacher preaching before he lost it?

Pelican Lini11:24 am 06 Jul 09

A German, a rabbi and a Scotsman walked into a bar and the bartender said: “Is this some kind of joke?”

nah, I don’t speak german. but apologies for using Godwin’s law (not Grech)

I heard their parties were killer…..

Their parties turn into a bit of a fizzer I hear ??

Loveulongtime12:53 am 06 Jul 09

Maybe you should have offered to buy the boy in blue a pint and tell him
to take a chill pill

Anna Key said :

I never met aany of the senior heirachy of the Nazi party either, but generally don’t have too high an opinion of them

Really? What a pity! The Nazis were so good at making generalisations about certain ‘kinds’ of people. You’d have had so much to talk about at parties.

My particular incident was for the torch relay plane. I guess some sensitivity was understandable. Unfortunately for the AFP, the guy next to me was a serious planespotter who engaged them in a conversation about plane types, dates, histories etc.

That plane would be the one Harrison Ford was in right?

Anna Key said :

A bit like taking photos at the airport. Not sure how possession of a camera suddenly makes you a threat to national security. If it is such an issue, were BBP allowed to build a two story carpark 100m from the taxiways, plus the one at brand depot which seems even closer (but no parking within 3m of the fence).

I’ve never been questioned about my airport photography, not even when I went right up to the fence to take a photo of a particular plane.

deye said :

While we are talking photography, I was up at Parliament house one night taking photos. At first I was at the edge of the footpath at one of the front corners setting the camera up to point at the flag pole when a car with three guards pulls up. One winds down the window and says “Do you have a pass ?” I thought wtf ? and responded with “no, this is a public place isn’t it ?” he then responded with “are you taking photos for commercial purposes ?”, “nope, just a hobby” I replied. They then drove off after a couple more words that I can’t recall. About 20 minutes later I was on the forecourt taking long exposures of the building and a guard on a bike came up. He was curious about the equipment I was using and asked me a few photography questions as he was heading off to a deployment and was planning on taking a camera, he asked me a few questions about what settings I was using, so I told him and showed him the photo in camera which he thought was quite impressive ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/d-eye/2995090508/ ). Two different guards, two different approaches. One confrontational the other friendly, both checking out what I was doing even though it was obvious and there were no problems with what I was doing.

I didn’t end up liking the first shot so haven’t published it.

A bit like taking photos at the airport. Not sure how possession of a camera suddenly makes you a threat to national security. If it is such an issue, were BBP allowed to build a two story carpark 100m from the taxiways, plus the one at brand depot which seems even closer (but no parking within 3m of the fence).

Granny said :

Anna Key said :

Sorry Granny, your point is?

My point is that to make a derogatory generalisation about a whole group of people, most of whom you have never met personally, is ignorant and bigoted. D’uh!

I never met aany of the senior heirachy of the Nazi party either, but generally don’t have too high an opinion of them

teacup <- storm

vg said :

“You’re right though, I’m not yet active in a designated zone, but I have undertaken Policing activities both domestic and International.”

You’re a member of the Protective Services, aren’t you

I picked that one too.

While we are talking photography, I was up at Parliament house one night taking photos. At first I was at the edge of the footpath at one of the front corners setting the camera up to point at the flag pole when a car with three guards pulls up. One winds down the window and says “Do you have a pass ?” I thought wtf ? and responded with “no, this is a public place isn’t it ?” he then responded with “are you taking photos for commercial purposes ?”, “nope, just a hobby” I replied. They then drove off after a couple more words that I can’t recall. About 20 minutes later I was on the forecourt taking long exposures of the building and a guard on a bike came up. He was curious about the equipment I was using and asked me a few photography questions as he was heading off to a deployment and was planning on taking a camera, he asked me a few questions about what settings I was using, so I told him and showed him the photo in camera which he thought was quite impressive ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/d-eye/2995090508/ ). Two different guards, two different approaches. One confrontational the other friendly, both checking out what I was doing even though it was obvious and there were no problems with what I was doing.

I didn’t end up liking the first shot so haven’t published it.

Granny said :

Anna Key said :

Sorry Granny, your point is?

My point is that to make a derogatory generalisation about a whole group of people, most of whom you have never met personally, is ignorant and bigoted. D’uh!

I don’t think you have to meet them. Their work is published! TDT, ACA, New Idea, Who Weekly, Daily Telegraph etc etc etc etc etc. Sorry, I’m with Anna on this one. John only devotes one sentence to the actual incident. The rest is that he ducked out of the pub, took a photo, and went back to his beer and was harrassed by the cops. Maybe he should have identified himself to the police. But I DO think the cop was out of order.

vg said :

The link starts off with “The following by is an analysis of legal issues which apply to street photography in NSW Australia. “

Last I checked Ainslie was in the ACT

read further, it also covers incidents, court cases and legislation in the rest of the country.

jake555 said :

In fact stalking can be as little as 2 events:
(From Crimes Act 1900)

For this section, a person stalks someone else (the stalked person)
if, on at least 2 occasions, the person does 1 or more of the
following:
(b) loiters near, watches, approaches or enters a place where the
stalked person resides, works or visits;
(c) keeps the stalked person under surveillance;
(g) sends electronic messages about the stalked person to anybody
else

Cripes, according to that I was stalking the cute construction guy when I was checking him out every time I walked past his construction site, and chatted about him afterwards at the office.

Aeek said :

A police officer wanted evidence to be destroyed? That doesn’t sound right.

The cops don’t want some half pissed “journalist” with a dodgy camera photographing the crime scene. They actually have someone on the payroll with state of the art gear to get all the photographic evidence they need.

Copper: “If you don’t delete that photograph I will confiscate your camera as evidence”

JB: “But I’m a JOURNALIST you know!”

Copper: “How come you look like Billy Bunter then? Well Mr Journalist, what media outlet do you represent?”

JB: “The RiotACT”

Copper: “The what?”

JB: “The RiotACT. You know, it’s an online forum for News and Views in the Canberra (ACT) Region. It’s an open and interactive ACT online soapbox, a Riot. It is “right of reply”.”

Copper: “look, just delete the photo and piss off ok? I’ve had enough of you nutters today.”

DMD – Not my point. Go back a re read it.

Regardless of how the copper acted JB should have stood up as a member of the media and represented Riotact as a legitimate Canberra media outlet. Instead he talks of scuttlebutt and word on the street type stuff as opposed to getting the story from the source. Probably could have rolled a camera and got some video interviewing the case officer getting the scoop on all other Canberra media forms.

Instead he came off as a tabloid reporter.

A police officer wanted evidence to be destroyed? That doesn’t sound right.

Instead of snapping away with a device that is obviously a camera, why not get something that is more spook-like and in keeping with the perils of your profession? You could be walking around with a disguised camera pinned to your t-shirt (I was going to say lapel, but that sounds very 1960s James Bond, doesn’t it?). Get one that looks like a flower maybe. That way, you’d have the most withering comebacks should a policeman ever demand it from you again.

So much posturing.

Let’s get some facts straight.

Based on the first post, the photo was published around 7pm, less than three hours after the incident.

He wouldn’t have been charged until well after 7pm.

An image of a person arrested can be shown until that person in charged.

If it was a newspaper, the published image cannot be changed after publication. It’s there in perpetuity.

In any case, if identity is to be an issue in court, no-one could identify the man from the photo.

Assuming the case eventually goes to trial, the man’s legal team would ensure he was be cleaned up, in suit and tie, with a shave and no headphones. He would be unidentifiable from the photo.

There should have been no police threat, the photo is fine.

Let’s move on.

Deadmandrinking said :

Were you there Spideydog? Don’t post on the Riot-Act if you don’t want to discuss events you were not present at.

1. I think I made it pretty clear that I wasn’t present 2. Keyword you used yourself was DISCUSS. Discussing is one thing m8, making baseless accusations is another. You weren’t discussing, you were making accusations then calling for discussion. JB can accuse, he was there. You weren’t.

I will not be taking further part in this thread, especially if you want to accuse then want me to discuss it. See you on another thread DMD.

Deadmandrinking5:33 pm 05 Jul 09

Were you there Spideydog? Don’t post on the Riot-Act if you don’t want to discuss events you were not present at.

Special G, if the officer did not have the legal right to tell JB to delete the photo, then he should not have – regardless of who JB was. The Police are given powers to enforce the law, not act on personal suspicions in any way they see fit.

Let me hypothesize, let’s just say JB was not involved with the media. It was still within his legal rights to take a picture, why should he be treated differently?

DMD I wasn’t suggesting JB co-operate with official media channels – If you paid attention any Police officer is appearing in the media lately and is encouraged to do so by management and the media team.

JB could have been a friend of the victim and been taking photos of the alleged offender so to take matters into his own hands later.

Or JB could be legitimate media outlet taking photos as a journalist and getting a story. My suggestion was JB fits himself firmly into the latter and as such identifies himself as a journalist and does his job professionally regardless of how obnoxious a copper comes across. eg:

Obnoxious copper “Delete the photo or I will seize your camera.”
JB “I am the editor/journalist for Riotact a legitimate Canberra media outlet and I would like to speak with the case officer/media rep please.”

johnboy said :

When police at the scene have made unlawful threats taking down names and numbers or identifying to anyone becomes secondary to getting the camera back to base in one piece.

Or actually providing a reason for taking a few pictures so they have a greater understanding of what you are doing. The individual in question probably thought you were a rubber necker and may have wanted to ensure that victim/participant in said crime didn’t have his privacy and whats left of his dignity further tarnished.

But no, we’ll slap it up on the internet and say he infringed your rights.

My thoughts on coppers aside, but surely even they no matter how far they offended you by doing your job, then thumbing your nose to them via the rest of this post, is quite similar to poodle pissing on the pits bull fence next door in full view of it.

One day the gate will be left open and you’ll be fucked.

Mike Crowther5:24 pm 05 Jul 09

I think the issue here is that there is now an allegation that police directed that photos taken at the crime scene (which may or may not be evidence in themselves) be deleted (destroyed). Should anyone be charged over the stabbing, a good lawyer may well present to the jury that this action could have prevented them ever getting the ‘full’ story. IE: They should have doubt about the totality of the prosecution’s evidence .

I thought we had a Human Rights Act to ensure that, as well as David Eastman getting enough sugar on his soggys, people are protected from threats of arbitrary arrests and confiscations. Or am I dreaming?

Deadmandrinking said :

No, sorry, Special G…when police abuse their powers, you have no obligation to be friendly to them or co-operate with their official media channels.

Were you there DMD? You and I have absolutely no idea of what occurred. You have re-enforced my point I made earlier.

The link starts off with “The following by is an analysis of legal issues which apply to street photography in NSW Australia. “

Last I checked Ainslie was in the ACT

jessieduck said :

I hope the man that was stabbed is OK

Me too, jessieduck. Trauma to the head can’t be good, and even survival can just be the beginning of a nightmare.

http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php has more general reading on what’s allowed and not allowed, at least half the posters on this topic might find it informative.

I hope the man that was stabbed is OK

Try it next time. I am pretty sure your camera and pictures will be intact and you may get a story as well.

When police at the scene have made unlawful threats taking down names and numbers or identifying to anyone becomes secondary to getting the camera back to base in one piece.

Deadmandrinking4:18 pm 05 Jul 09

No, sorry, Special G…when police abuse their powers, you have no obligation to be friendly to them or co-operate with their official media channels.

JB – you might get a better story by identifying yourself as a media journalist and requesting to speak with a delegate of or the officer in charge of the scene and getting a story from it with all the details they may care to release at the time. Instead you have come off looking a bit TT/ACA.

“You’re right though, I’m not yet active in a designated zone, but I have undertaken Policing activities both domestic and International.”

You’re a member of the Protective Services, aren’t you

Matty

Lets just say my 20 years of actually being a cop means I know a little more about this than you. You are not the appropriate person to try and be speaking with any ilk of authority on matters legal here.

Leave it alone, you are punching well above your weight, all good intentions aside

Matty Sullivan said :

So let me break this down..

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF A POLICE OFFICER DURING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IS NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS HOWEVER AT THE DISCRETION OF THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS AND THE POLICE ARE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, AND THE LAW, TO INTERVENE AND CONFISCATE ANY AND ALL IMAGES YOU HAVE OBTAINED FOR THE USE OF EVIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

I think you miss the point.

If it was ‘evidence’ he would have wanted it for the investigation, not forced JB to delete it. This is clearly an abuse of privilege.

Gladly actions like this are rare, and while we have no real rights and many of the laws we have would make a dictator blush, the AFP are not prone to abusing their power to any significant extent.

Anna Key said :

Sorry Granny, your point is?

My point is that to make a derogatory generalisation about a whole group of people, most of whom you have never met personally, is ignorant and bigoted. D’uh!

I for one would be interested to hear peoples opinions regarding the subject of rights… the victims rights and the alleged offenders rights. JB has ignored them in my opinion – he would rather grind his axe again and again.

Everybody here dribbles on about this and that but what if it was you in the photo or a photo of a loved one?

JB had no right to post this story in this format.

Deadmandrinking2:08 pm 05 Jul 09

Spideydog said :

Deadmandrinking said :

Yeah, yeah VG. Anything to avoid real debate.

Tooks, perhaps you could enlighten the riot-act on whether the AFP members conduct was lawful, and whether this occurs frequently within the AFP?

TP3000, if the preacher didn’t attack him when he was taking the photos, how would the actual photos in the phone matter?

DMD, unlike you who takes one side of the story as “gospel” it is not really appropriate to discuss that particular incident m8. I am not insinuating that JB is lying, but it is foolish to make a debate on a one sided story. JB has the right to make complaint if he wishes to in relation to his alleged treatment.

Spideydog/Tooks? Why not introduce the other side of the story, then?

Matty, is deleting a photograph the same as confiscating?

Matty Sullivan2:07 pm 05 Jul 09

Spideydog said :

Deadmandrinking said :

Yeah, yeah VG. Anything to avoid real debate.

Tooks, perhaps you could enlighten the riot-act on whether the AFP members conduct was lawful, and whether this occurs frequently within the AFP?

TP3000, if the preacher didn’t attack him when he was taking the photos, how would the actual photos in the phone matter?

DMD, unlike you who takes one side of the story as “gospel” it is not really appropriate to discuss that particular incident m8. I am not insinuating that JB is lying, but it is foolish to make a debate on a one sided story. JB has the right to make complaint if he wishes to in relation to his alleged treatment.

Yes he does. For future reference, John — if you feel that an Officer is acting unlawfully and is acting unnecessarily, you need only ask for his badge number and posted station. You have the right as both a journalist and a resident of the ACT to make a formal complaint against any AFP or Policing Officer.

Deadmandrinking said :

Yeah, yeah VG. Anything to avoid real debate.

Tooks, perhaps you could enlighten the riot-act on whether the AFP members conduct was lawful, and whether this occurs frequently within the AFP?

TP3000, if the preacher didn’t attack him when he was taking the photos, how would the actual photos in the phone matter?

DMD, unlike you who takes one side of the story as “gospel” it is not really appropriate to discuss that particular incident m8. I am not insinuating that JB is lying, but it is foolish to make a debate on a one sided story. JB has the right to make complaint if he wishes to in relation to his alleged treatment.

JB,

I read your intro in disbelief that you would not consider the consequences of your actions. All high and mighty and a level of arrogance that I should have expected but was still surprised to see.

You come across as trying to better “the man” and free speech and all that rubbish but what about the accused his his rights? You don’t even express no concern for the injured person at all – you’d rather pop out and potentially disrupt things.

Another winning effort where you stir up anti-Police sentiment. Don’t you have anything containing actual substance to contribute?

Deadmandrinking1:27 pm 05 Jul 09

A word of warning, however…I was just randomly chatting to my housemate, who’s done journalism and I brought up this incident. It may not actually be legal to publish (although legal to actually take) the photograph in question, as it may influence public opinion. He was not certain, as he doesn’t deal with this sort of stuff, but you might not be able to identify the person in custody.

JB, I’d recommend you get some sort of legal advice, just to make sure you’re in the right in regards to the publication of the photos. I may be wrong, but it’s always good to be in the know.

Matty Sullivan1:24 pm 05 Jul 09

vg said :

“I would love to see someone walk into the SAS headquarters in Swanbourne and begin taking snap shots. It’s not defined as a “defence installation” but it does come under its own Laws.”

They can’t do that as its called trespassing on Commonwealth Property, Einstein.

I’ll give you a bit of advice for free Matty. Clearly you are a recruit at best, and someone who is yet in a policing organisation but studying towards obtaining a place at the other end. Either way you’re not a copper yet so, even though your enthusiasm can’t be faulted, I’d refrain from giving opinions on what happens during the business of policing.

You are wrong on numerous accounts with your ideas of legislation and operational procedures and run the risk of giving the greater public you are an authority on these things when, to be blunt, you haven’t seen a day’s policing in your life.

One thing you will learn if you ever get to be a copper is that there are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth. Until you know at least 2 sides of what happened here (and don’t expect the copper involved to come on here and give us their thinking) I’d refrain from giving your opinion.

If people can’t take pictures of AFP members why isn’t The Commissioner’s face pixelated every time you see it. I’m damn sure the journos don’t ask for his permission each and every time a shot is taken.

You will serve no good purpose trying to justify Police actions on a forum like this. Everyone ‘knows better’ than you and unfortunately, with zero policing experience, a lot of them will be right.

I’m guessing what happened in this thread is one person’s opinion of what happened. I won’t be drawn into the argument either way as it will serve no purpose. As a potential future copper I’d suggest you do the same

I don’t ever recall noting how far I was into my training, nor do I recall ever hinting at the idea that I am not already an active Police Officer. You’re right though, I’m not yet active in a designated zone, but I have undertaken Policing activities both domestic and International.

You’re right. That is classed as Trespassing on Commonwealth Property. No need for pseudo-intellectual remarks regarding my intelligence. I have admitted to be wrong a few times within this article, but I have also been right.

You are forgetting that while the Commissioner is one of the highest, he/she is also not active in major criminal investigations, and isn’t normally present at the crime scene. From my understanding — and the relevant pertaining documents I have read this morning — you may photograph publicly. However, in special circumstances such as this, it is discredited to begin taking snap shots of the crime scene, the victim or the offenders for case reasons.

So let me break this down..

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF A POLICE OFFICER DURING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IS NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS HOWEVER AT THE DISCRETION OF THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS AND THE POLICE ARE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, AND THE LAW, TO INTERVENE AND CONFISCATE ANY AND ALL IMAGES YOU HAVE OBTAINED FOR THE USE OF EVIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

In the event that it is a high-case investigation, it may be relevant for the Police to conceal the identity of any and all persons involved until more evidence and information is gathered. This is most likely judged on a case-by-case. You’re right, though. Perhaps it would be best to step back from this discussion.

Well lucky for us we don’t live in China.

When going overseas you should always check the local regulations and customs before taking photographs.

Beserk Keyboard Warrior1:13 pm 05 Jul 09

In China you would’ve been given the option of deleting the photo or being executed on the spot.

Rawhide Kid No 2 said :

deye said :

IIRC they need a court order to have you delete a photo from your camera.
If you were standing on public property (ie the footpath) you can take photos of whatever you like.
Have a look through http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

I think this legislation only refers to NSW. As the ACT was originally under Commonwealth (Federal) jurisdiction and a lot of the Commonwealth law still apply and have to yet be amended.

Then I could be wrong.

It’s specific to NSW, but discusses the whole of Australia as most of it is common across the country.

screaming banshee said :

deye said :

In your example you wouldn’t be able to stand in the office door as it is private property. If however you were standing on the footpath with a telephoto lens and could see Ruby Wednesday through the door then you would be fine.

Dont have any reference to quote here but I’m pretty sure the line is drawn based on focus/intent.

So, if the photograph is taken with a particular focus on an individual you require permission unless the photo is taken at a public performance…not just in public

If the photo is taken of an event or gathering or general scene with no particular focus on any individual then individual’s permission is not required.

you can take a photo on the street of anyone in focus without their permission. It’s only if you are going to use it for commercial purposes that you need a release signed.

Have a read through “Unauthorised Photographs on the Internet And Ancillary Privacy Issues” (PDF) from the Attorney-General’s Department. There is a list of relevant legislation by state and territory in appendix 1.

Deadmandrinking1:03 pm 05 Jul 09

Yeah, yeah VG. Anything to avoid real debate.

Tooks, perhaps you could enlighten the riot-act on whether the AFP members conduct was lawful, and whether this occurs frequently within the AFP?

TP3000, if the preacher didn’t attack him when he was taking the photos, how would the actual photos in the phone matter?

paperboy said :

If the ABC WIN or Canberra Times had stumbled past the incident, is anyone here going to convince me the cops would have ordered the material be erased.

I have been told that most of the time, the media do hand over copies to the Police, also the Police have a better idea of what they are going to use the video/pictures for. While there can’t be 100% certain what the general public are going to do.

I know once I was involved in an accident & I took a few pictures of the bus involved & the other vechile. The Police asked what I was doing here & I told them I was involved in the accident & just taking pictures for my records. Of course I gave the Police a witness report afterwards. But they let me keep the pictures as I never took a picture at the attending emergency service crews or the victims. Which may of been the reason for the big who ha in the first place. We also have to remember that the attacker had been calmed down & seeing some drunk weirdo (in his eyes) taking pictures of him in custody may of set him off again & he may of attacked you. The same goes if I see someone taking pictures of me or fellow RFS crews putting out fires. As I would think of you as a suspected arsonists, even though you may not be.

We all have to remember that people are a bit cagey nowadays

Pelican Lini12:30 pm 05 Jul 09

Yes, quite agree, “silly little” people may question the “authoritah” of the media but it pales into insignificance next to this most outrageous alleged abuse of police power ever.

The outrage over JB’s photo is laughable.

If the ABC WIN or Canberra Times had stumbled past the incident, is anyone here going to convince me the cops would have ordered the material be erased.

BS

It was on public property and everything is fair game.

If Jo Average can see it while going about his normal daily business, it can be photographed or filmed and used on air.

Cops at accident sites, murder scenes, even removing hard drives from Godwin Grech’s home can and are filmed.

Off you high horses people.

Deadmandrinking said :

Rawhide Kid No 2 said :

vg said :

“John is a qualified journalist and has every right to be treated with the respect accorded to those from mainstream media organisations.”

Which is no different to that of any other citizen of this country. The fact that he has a qualification here is irrelevant, as the law permits him no particular benefit because of his qualification.

ACA has mainstream journalists…..geez they garner respect

Did John identify himself as being a journalist ?

Did he need to? I think the point being made here is that it didn’t matter whether he was or he wasn’t, he’s sill within his rights.

JB, have you rung the AFP and clarified the situation with them? If some of their officers are under the illusion that they’ve been given super-powers Gestapo-style, then that’s a major problem that they need to know about.

VG, instead of just calling everyone a moron, perhaps you could enlighten us on what officers of AFP know about the law regarding photography and whether this is a common thing? It would be nice to have that insight, I’m just saying…

Just FYI DMD, from now on. Just to save you some angst, I actually completely ignore anything you say on this site. So there’s actually no point in asking me for anything.

Good luck

johnboy said :

not relevant to the threat to society posed by a police service with members willfully and publicly making illegal threats.

Members? I thought only one member spoke to you?

I should include that the punk guy was swearing and being abusive too and both sides did look for a little bit like they where ready to get into a fight.

Wild.

See this guy in Civic every morning. Assumed he was schizophrenic but pretty harmless as he takes the flack he gets pretty well. The other morning there where a couple of teenagers picking on him and he was very patient about it all, they where being dickheads and I almost got off the bus to tell them to piss off and leave him alone.

Yesterday though, he was having a big shouting match in Civic, where Impact/ JB’s used to be, around miday, with some old punk/ feral guy and a woman. It kinda surprised me as he was calling them a c##ksucker and shouting “you wanna piece of this”, they really had him worked up. Don’t know what kicked it off as it was already started when I rode by.

I feel a bit sorry for the guy as I think he is schizophrenic and it amazes me how many people will abuse him without thinking through the fact that although he is spouting religious stuff he was doing no one any harm and people don’t choose to be schizophrenic.

Maybe he isn’t and was just a religious nutter, either way that’s pretty full on if he did stab someone.

Deadmandrinking11:51 am 05 Jul 09

Rawhide Kid No 2 said :

vg said :

“John is a qualified journalist and has every right to be treated with the respect accorded to those from mainstream media organisations.”

Which is no different to that of any other citizen of this country. The fact that he has a qualification here is irrelevant, as the law permits him no particular benefit because of his qualification.

ACA has mainstream journalists…..geez they garner respect

Did John identify himself as being a journalist ?

Did he need to? I think the point being made here is that it didn’t matter whether he was or he wasn’t, he’s sill within his rights.

JB, have you rung the AFP and clarified the situation with them? If some of their officers are under the illusion that they’ve been given super-powers Gestapo-style, then that’s a major problem that they need to know about.

VG, instead of just calling everyone a moron, perhaps you could enlighten us on what officers of AFP know about the law regarding photography and whether this is a common thing? It would be nice to have that insight, I’m just saying…

I think that whilst i agree with Johnboy’s right to photograph the event is well within his rights and should not be hindered, it could also create bias towards the wrong parties and create the wrong idea of what happened thus making the job harder for police. There should be no problem publishing the images after the investigation is completed.

However, i think that the Police officer was out of line asking for the images to be deleted as this now become destruction of personal property. He should have asked for copies of the images, clearly identified himself and referred Johnboy to the Media Officer.

But these are ACT police and they do things a little differently.

Matty Sullivan said :

caf said :

Also keep in mind that a “defence installation” constitutes any military barracks, area of operations and P-Vet and N-Vet rated buildings containing specialized and non-specialized personnel. I would love to see someone walk into the SAS headquarters in Swanbourne and begin taking snap shots. It’s not defined as a “defence installation” but it does come under its own Laws.

I have a stack of photos from when i went to Swanbourne, and it is a Defence installation.

Rawhide Kid No 211:21 am 05 Jul 09

vg said :

“John is a qualified journalist and has every right to be treated with the respect accorded to those from mainstream media organisations.”

Which is no different to that of any other citizen of this country. The fact that he has a qualification here is irrelevant, as the law permits him no particular benefit because of his qualification.

ACA has mainstream journalists…..geez they garner respect

Did John identify himself as being a journalist ?

Well the ABC now has a report on thisn incident

Man stabbed in head at Canberra shops
Posted 3 hours 37 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 35 minutes ago
A 43-year-old man is in a serious condition in the Canberra Hospital, after being stabbed at the Ainslie shops yesterday afternoon.
Police say the man was stabbed several times in the head and neck, around 4:30pm.
A 36-year-old Ainslie man who was at the scene is being questioned by detectives.
Police are appealing for witnesses to the incident.

Rawhide Kid No 211:07 am 05 Jul 09

deye said :

IIRC they need a court order to have you delete a photo from your camera.
If you were standing on public property (ie the footpath) you can take photos of whatever you like.
Have a look through http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

I think this legislation only refers to NSW. As the ACT was originally under Commonwealth (Federal) jurisdiction and a lot of the Commonwealth law still apply and have to yet be amended.

Then I could be wrong.

Ok, to clear up a couple of things.

1) The preacher was not the victim of the stabbing.

2) The officer pictured was not the one making the threats.

3) You can say whatever your silly little heart desires about my personal merits or those of the journalistic profession as a whole but it is not relevant to the threat to society posed by a police service with members willfully and publicly making illegal threats.

The cop probably told some chick (or his mum) that he was the commissioner and didn’t want a random pic to destroy the illusion.

I would have thought that someone getting stabbed in the head at a suburban shopping centre is more scary than a cop probably mistakenly requesting that you delete a photo of the crime or hand over the camera.

I am off to photograph the ASIS.. Allowed?

can anyone give a potted account of what actually happened – who allegedly stabbed whom and perhaps why? the crimes is unstrangely silent on this story this morning, as far as i can see…

(was at the shops a little after this happened, but went about my business and moved along – a clerk in the iga told me a stabbing had taken place, is all i knew)

Granny said :

Anna Key said :

John certainly seems to have the required level of self-righteousness as a journo from a mainstream media organisation.

Some people’s family members are journalists, you know. Did you ever stop to think about that? What’s so superior about your profession, that allows you to be so self-righteous? But why stop with one wild generalisation?

Sorry Granny, your point is? One only has to watch mainstream media to see and hear journos push the ‘right to know’ argument when wanting to push a story ie sell papers, attract viewers etc.

Granny said :

Anna Key said :

John certainly seems to have the required level of self-righteousness as a journo from a mainstream media organisation.

Some people’s family members are journalists, you know. Did you ever stop to think about that? What’s so superior about your profession, that allows you to be so self-righteous? But why stop with one wild generalisation?

So?

Some people’s family members are plumbers as well

screaming banshee9:17 am 05 Jul 09

Ivan76 said :

I would like to see a “funny caption” competition

Officer moonlighting as hairdresser caught purple-handed

“I would love to see someone walk into the SAS headquarters in Swanbourne and begin taking snap shots. It’s not defined as a “defence installation” but it does come under its own Laws.”

They can’t do that as its called trespassing on Commonwealth Property, Einstein.

I’ll give you a bit of advice for free Matty. Clearly you are a recruit at best, and someone who is yet in a policing organisation but studying towards obtaining a place at the other end. Either way you’re not a copper yet so, even though your enthusiasm can’t be faulted, I’d refrain from giving opinions on what happens during the business of policing.

You are wrong on numerous accounts with your ideas of legislation and operational procedures and run the risk of giving the greater public you are an authority on these things when, to be blunt, you haven’t seen a day’s policing in your life.

One thing you will learn if you ever get to be a copper is that there are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth. Until you know at least 2 sides of what happened here (and don’t expect the copper involved to come on here and give us their thinking) I’d refrain from giving your opinion.

If people can’t take pictures of AFP members why isn’t The Commissioner’s face pixelated every time you see it. I’m damn sure the journos don’t ask for his permission each and every time a shot is taken.

You will serve no good purpose trying to justify Police actions on a forum like this. Everyone ‘knows better’ than you and unfortunately, with zero policing experience, a lot of them will be right.

I’m guessing what happened in this thread is one person’s opinion of what happened. I won’t be drawn into the argument either way as it will serve no purpose. As a potential future copper I’d suggest you do the same

I wonder if JB had clearly been a snapper for the Canberra Times, or from the Parli House Press Gallery, would the police officer still have demanded he delete the photo.

When I was shooting news for WIN, a pic like the one above would have been fair game. The only times I can recall that we showed restraint in showing police officers was when it involved sensitive operational matters, like stuff involving the Tactical Response guys (although these days it seems as though even that’s no longer a concern)

So we can argue about people standing in hypothetical doorways or following people and taking photos all you like. In this specific case, from direct experience, I believe the officer was out of line with what he said to JB.

screaming banshee8:53 am 05 Jul 09

deye said :

In your example you wouldn’t be able to stand in the office door as it is private property. If however you were standing on the footpath with a telephoto lens and could see Ruby Wednesday through the door then you would be fine.

Dont have any reference to quote here but I’m pretty sure the line is drawn based on focus/intent.

So, if the photograph is taken with a particular focus on an individual you require permission unless the photo is taken at a public performance…not just in public

If the photo is taken of an event or gathering or general scene with no particular focus on any individual then individual’s permission is not required.

I don’t think things have changed much, really. A hundred years ago, the community would gossip about anything they saw in public, now we post photos on the web. I would prefer my photo be posted online to everyone gossiping about me!

Here’s a tip for anyone who doesn’t want their photo taken in public: don’t go out in public! It’s ‘public’ for a reason! You only have a right to privacy in private. When in public, you have a right to publicity!

Shame about the Preacher.

I think JB was within his rights to both take, and post, the pic. The cop could have asked for his face to be obscured if he was worried about privacy or security. The SAS, etc. do this all the time.

At best, the pic seems to indicate the cop is looking after the offender, so what’s the real issue? At worst, however, it looks like the cop is moonlighting as a hairdresser and is dying the Preacher’s hair!

IMHO: Censorship sux.

Anna Key said :

John certainly seems to have the required level of self-righteousness as a journo from a mainstream media organisation.

Some people’s family members are journalists, you know. Did you ever stop to think about that? What’s so superior about your profession, that allows you to be so self-righteous? But why stop with one wild generalisation?

“John is a qualified journalist and has every right to be treated with the respect accorded to those from mainstream media organisations. “

John certainly seems to have the required level of self-righteousness as a journo from a mainstream media organisation. I really don’t think the police demanding you delete the photo is “even scarier” than someone being stabbed outside a shopping centre in the afternoon.

Having said that, it is an interesting concept that you couldn’t photograph the police officer but there is no apparent problem of say, the two gentlemen in the background.

Well, we like it.

Pelican Lini1:31 am 05 Jul 09

“We’re so proud that our press feel so free to manipulate them you and me” (Robert Wyatt Mass Medium – from the great album old rottenhat).
Of course, he wasn’t referring to this esteemed organ – the people’s website!

Matty Sullivan1:27 am 05 Jul 09

John — you are a respected member of the journalism community. You may be good at your job; you may be honest with your work and publications, but one thing you are not is above the Law. Not to imply that you suggest that, but nobody here is above the Law. Not even the members of the AFP or any other Law Enforcement agencies. I’ve been coming to RiotACT for quite some time now (prior to registration) and I have to say I have always been impressed with your work.

But as an Officer in training, and my general thought patterns suggest, that the Officer acted within his jurisdiction and within the limitations of the Law. I would have done the exact same thing. An ongoing investigation can be blown by one image, one rumor — and even by one publication on the Internet. It’s a lot easier for the Police to do their job in discretion then it is with media hype.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenel Satires IV) read into this what you will.

When a police officer has opened with a threat of illegal consequence there’s no desire to self identify as media.

If RiotACT was a much bigger organisation we might pay an hourly rate for staff stuck in custody as a result of police thugishness.

None of which relates to broader issues of freedom essential to a viable society.

Eyeball In A Quart Jar Of Snot1:01 am 05 Jul 09

Tonight on A Current Affair…

Pelican Lini12:39 am 05 Jul 09

I agree with Granny. JB should have been treated with the same respect as mainstream media ie none whatsoever 😉

Also one can not find a reference to the alleged powers to challenge the public or press in the Crimes Act 1904 et al http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/.
Happy to be corrected on this and back to watch Le Tour.

I said it before, I will say it now, and I will say it again…
“Only criminals have something to fear from the law” is not an argument in a Security versus Privacy debate, its only a valid argument in a Freedom versus Control debate.
This is the version of events where police are on the receiving end (unless there are some _really_ wierd circumstances).

In this case I suggest Jb just take the moral high ground.
Gentle loving caress the policeman, gently caress the horse they rode in on.
Post the pictures, let the public decide.

I don’t blame the female officer for threathing legal action, how would you like a drunk person whom you didn’t know trying to give you a hug? I think this is disrespectful to the AFP, the officer was well within her rights, no one has the right to come up and touch you, thats what she was referring to when she said it would be used as evidence.

I know someone who came out of the court, it was then that a Canberra Times reporter took her photo, she demanded he delete it, which he did, I’m pretty sure she was within her rights, maybe it was the location, not sure.

Matty Sullivan said :

I would love to see someone walk into the SAS headquarters in Swanbourne and begin taking snap shots. It’s not defined as a “defence installation” but it does come under its own Laws.

Again that is “into”. That would be private property and they can make whatever rules they like. If you were on the street outside the base then it would be fine as long as there were no relevant notices around the place prohibiting it. Not all defence facilities have those signs only some, it depends on the nature of what they do there.

All very interesting,but Law Enforcement Agencies(LEA) are very different from ADF personnel, and as a member of the APS who has been captured on vision, still and in editorial by the media without recourse, one still believes that the public oversight of LEA and other agencies provides the ‘sunshine’ that acts as a disinfectant to a potentially ill process.

threepaws said :

Once people have considered their ‘rights’ to take a photo of whatever they choose, would you consider the rights of those people who are in your photos?

What if they don’t want their photo taken and published anywhere? Public servants still have a right to privacy, even if their job requires that they conduct their work in a public place.

@ Ruby Wednesday – how would you feel if I followed you to and from your car at your workplace taking photos? Technically, for insurance purposes, you are at your place of work. Perhaps you work at the tax office and I want to record your level of integrity? Your argument suggest that it would be ok for me to stand at your office door and photograph your actions.

Also, I don’t have kids, but if a stranger was openly and deliberately taking photos of them, I would definitely have a problem with that.

If you are in a public place and the photographer is also in a public place then you have no right to privacy and the photographer can take your photo. If however the photographer then tries to sell the photo for use in commercial purposes then a release needs to be signed. This is to prevent your image being used in a way that you could be recommending a product that you don’t approve of.

In your example you wouldn’t be able to stand in the office door as it is private property. If however you were standing on the footpath with a telephoto lens and could see Ruby Wednesday through the door then you would be fine.

Matty Sullivan said :

As for ‘not being allowed to photograph APS employees’ – that is quite correct. The APS covers a large array of Government agencies and, as common sense suggests, the photographing of a Government employee is illegal.

snip!

Deye – That only applies to New South Wales; who, if I am correct, are not Federal Police Officers. They are part of NSW Policing, not the AFP. Separate jurisdiction and Laws.

Re the first part, never heard of that and I am a public servant and have taken photos of plenty of other public servants.

2 nd part, the page is written specifically for NSW, however most of it also applies to the rest of Australia as the laws pertaining to those parts are common. Exceptions are noted. AFP or NSW police are all still police.

Matty Sullivan11:23 pm 04 Jul 09

caf said :

Then I highly suggest you visit your local library or Law Enforcement agency (any Police Station, AFP Headquarters will do) and ask a member of such agencies to inform you of the correct Law.

If this thread demonstrates anything it’s that Law Enforcement agencies seem to have some pretty whacky ideas of the law. How about, as the one who’s making the outlandish claims, you go find the supporting evidence?

I would hardly define them as ‘outlandish.’ I am merely expressing the knowledge I do have, while remaining open minded about the subject. Like I said previously, Laws change from state to state. As far as I am aware the only Laws that don’t change are military, and some Government agencies pertaining to National Security and other things.

I will have a good look into this, as it’s certainly got my undivided attention. I could very well be wrong, and you may very well be right. I won’t know until I have a good look into it.

caf said :

It applies only to “defence installations” which are defined quite narrowly:

“defence installation” means any fort, battery, fieldwork, fortification, aircraft, air force establishment or aircraft material or any naval, military or air force work of defence.

Umm “any naval, military or air force WORK OF DEFENCE” would indicate to me that it is a VERY broad definition, not narrow. Even the guard house is covered !!!!

Then I highly suggest you visit your local library or Law Enforcement agency (any Police Station, AFP Headquarters will do) and ask a member of such agencies to inform you of the correct Law.

If this thread demonstrates anything it’s that Law Enforcement agencies seem to have some pretty whacky ideas of the law. How about, as the one who’s making the outlandish claims, you go find the supporting evidence?

caf said :

Fair enough Granny. I might ask though, during this incident, did JB identify himself as a media journalist?

Shouldn’t make a bloody bit of difference.

I makes every bit of difference … how many of these incidents end up on youtube and can possibly impede and hinder an active investigation. A journalist actually know the law and generally know what would hinder or obstruct or damage an investigation. People just turning up to a crime scene and start video/photo can damage an investigation. Why do you think crime scene’s are established ?? To preserve and control the scene.

Matty Sullivan11:12 pm 04 Jul 09

Granny said :

All the very best for your studies, Matty. I think you will make a fine officer.

Cheers,
Granny

Thank you.

Ruby Wednesday11:10 pm 04 Jul 09

Though I can see how you might have gotten the impression, as I did quote you at the start of a reply. But yes, that was directed at jake555.

Regardless, stalking is a red herring.

And I agree with caf that being a journalist shouldn’t make an ounce of difference. While wanting the public to cooperate with the police is a lovely idea, the police also need to be able to back up their actions with reference to actual legislation rather than ‘coz I said so’ for that two-way trust to be built.

And I’d like to add, this almost superstitious level of angst around photographs these days is completely over the top. A large number of people need to get a damn grip.

“John is a qualified journalist and has every right to be treated with the respect accorded to those from mainstream media organisations.”

Which is no different to that of any other citizen of this country. The fact that he has a qualification here is irrelevant, as the law permits him no particular benefit because of his qualification.

ACA has mainstream journalists…..geez they garner respect

Matty Sullivan11:09 pm 04 Jul 09

caf said :

I know that for the Department of Defence it comes under Section 82(1) of the Defence Act 1903. Which prohibits the drawing, sketching, photographing or illustrating of any military building, base, or quarters unless otherwise noted. I believe this does also cover Government buildings.

The relevant law is here, and it doesn’t apply to all Defence buildings, let alone non-Defence Government buildings. It applies only to “defence installations” which are defined quite narrowly:

“defence installation” means any fort, battery, fieldwork, fortification, aircraft, air force establishment or aircraft material or any naval, military or air force work of defence.

As for this:

I am currently studying to join NT Policing so I will find out for you tomorrow and post back. However I do know that it is illegal to photograph (unless specified otherwise, and with proper consent) an AFP Officer or any member of the Law Enforcement. If you’re from the News, fine, as it is at the discretion of the Police to approve the images for publication.

Until I see chapter and verse, I don’t believe it.

Then I highly suggest you visit your local library or Law Enforcement agency (any Police Station, AFP Headquarters will do) and ask a member of such agencies to inform you of the correct Law.

Also keep in mind that a “defence installation” constitutes any military barracks, area of operations and P-Vet and N-Vet rated buildings containing specialized and non-specialized personnel. I would love to see someone walk into the SAS headquarters in Swanbourne and begin taking snap shots. It’s not defined as a “defence installation” but it does come under its own Laws.

Ruby Wednesday11:08 pm 04 Jul 09

No, jake555 raised it earlier on the basis of how would I like it if he took photos of me working, because omg that would be stalking. That is what I was responding to. Not everything posted is in response to you 😉

Fair enough Granny. I might ask though, during this incident, did JB identify himself as a media journalist?

Shouldn’t make a bloody bit of difference.

Ruby Wednesday said :

If the police were going to charge him with stalking, surely the individual officer would need to be the complainant and therefore should not be attempting to seize material relating to their own complaint?

Dude, you are barking up an empty tree….. the stalking argument was in relation to paparazzi, not in relation to this incident ??!!

In my experience, media will always identify themselves to the police when they present to an incident or crime scene location.

Sorry for the two poster …. lol

Granny said :

John is a qualified journalist and has every right to be treated with the respect accorded to those from mainstream media organisations.

Fair enough Granny. I might ask though, during this incident, did JB identify himself as a media journalist?

Cops still at shops at 10.55pm… S-O-C folk… something positive to come out of this is the floor in Theo’s might be cleaned now.

All the very best for your studies, Matty. I think you will make a fine officer.

Cheers,
Granny

Ruby Wednesday11:02 pm 04 Jul 09

If the police were going to charge him with stalking, surely the individual officer would need to be the complainant and therefore should not be attempting to seize material relating to their own complaint?

And yes, obviously two can be stalking; I believe I said it was a ‘series of events’ (two is a series) rather than just a single event. Though I’m not sure if taking multiple photographs at one incident would meet the test for a series. The acts would have to also be directed at (or be perceived to be directed at) an individual, rather than someone photographing a local news event.

Anyway, bed time for me.

Granny said :

However, I also believe that I should have the right to go to a public concert and take photographs or photograph my kids taking part in the school play regardless of whether there are other kids on stage etc. etc. etc.

I have no issue with that Granny, you have a personal purpose/reason, ie taking photos of your kids in a school play/concert.

Matty Sullivan said :

Leaking information to the general public can be fatal to any criminal or political investigation.

The media and some of the public don’t seem to realise that sometimes. Generally they do though.

Ruby Wednesday said :

Your claim to privacy in a public space is pretty limited, IIRC. And ‘stalking’ involves more than just the act of taking a photograph. If I was chasing you around photographing every move you make and leading you to be in fear of your safety, that is different than taking photographs at the scene of a public incident. Stalking is a series of events rather than a single event.

I am very well aware of what stalking is. The media and paparazzi are protected by law. If any other citizen did what the paparazzi do, they would be before the courts quick smart on stalking charges. A paparazzi photographer does not just take one photo and are never to be seen or heard again …. they continually hound and harass celebrities. I was never insinuating that in the JB incident, it was stalking, so I am perplexed as to how to would argue that? I am not commenting on the JB incident, as I wasn’t there and obviously wouldn’t be fair for either side to presume the facts.

Matty Sullivan11:00 pm 04 Jul 09

Granny said :

Matty Sullivan said :

Granny said :

In relation to Matty’s comment I can only tell you you’re dreamin’ …. There would be photographs containing AFP personnel in nearly every Canberra home.

Also keeping in mind the photo was taken during a Police investigation. It may have been assumed by said individual Officer that perhaps the Photographer (RiotACT Editor) had images of the offence being committed. It’s in the natural instinct of the Officer to confiscate the camera to search for evidence. The Officer may have also been attempting to conceal the identity of the victim/perpetrator.

Matty, I really, really, really hope that you are right. I hope that the officer was acting in good faith and doing the right thing.

I want to believe in the integrity of our police, but I also want it to be true.

I don’t know the law or the circumstances. If his actions were within the law, I don’t have a problem, except that it would have been sensible (and good public relations) to quote the legal basis of his powers to pursue that course of action.

John is a qualified journalist and has every right to be treated with the respect accorded to those from mainstream media organisations.

Most Australians are appalled when our journalists have their cameras seized in foreign countries and wonder what the authorities were trying to hide.

Good points. Valid points.

I understand that there are many Police Officers out there who use the uniform as an ego or power trip and, while they do remain in all cities, my personal opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding it, is that the Officer was working within the boundaries of the Law and was acting within the Law to protect the individuals involved and the case itself. To be honest, I can’t find any other reason as to why he would intervene like he did.

John may well be a respected journalist, but in many cases there has been times when journalists have halted the trials and arrests of suspected criminals in the past. Take the current proceedings in Victoria in regard to the Gangland Killings. Once a criminal reaches a celebrity status, it can make court proceedings and investigations a lot more difficult when the media constantly intervenes.

You’re right. The Officer in question should have been wiser as to state the intentions of removing the images from John’s camera. However at the same time, I feel the general public should, well, not so much ‘obey’, but co-operate with the authorities in helping to put people who are out to harm others behind bars.

I know that for the Department of Defence it comes under Section 82(1) of the Defence Act 1903. Which prohibits the drawing, sketching, photographing or illustrating of any military building, base, or quarters unless otherwise noted. I believe this does also cover Government buildings.

The relevant law is here, and it doesn’t apply to all Defence buildings, let alone non-Defence Government buildings. It applies only to “defence installations” which are defined quite narrowly:

“defence installation” means any fort, battery, fieldwork, fortification, aircraft, air force establishment or aircraft material or any naval, military or air force work of defence.

As for this:

I am currently studying to join NT Policing so I will find out for you tomorrow and post back. However I do know that it is illegal to photograph (unless specified otherwise, and with proper consent) an AFP Officer or any member of the Law Enforcement. If you’re from the News, fine, as it is at the discretion of the Police to approve the images for publication.

Until I see chapter and verse, I don’t believe it.

In fact stalking can be as little as 2 events:
(From Crimes Act 1900)

For this section, a person stalks someone else (the stalked person)
if, on at least 2 occasions, the person does 1 or more of the
following:
(a) follows or approaches the stalked person;
(b) loiters near, watches, approaches or enters a place where the
stalked person resides, works or visits;
(c) keeps the stalked person under surveillance;
(d) interferes with property in the possession of the stalked person;
(e) gives or sends offensive material to the stalked person or
leaves offensive material where it is likely to be found by,
given to or brought to the attention of, the stalked person;
(f) telephones, sends electronic messages to or otherwise contacts
the stalked person;
(g) sends electronic messages about the stalked person to anybody
else;
(h) makes electronic messages about the stalked person available
to anybody else;
(i) acts covertly in a way that could reasonably be expected to
arouse apprehension or fear in the stalked person;
(j) engages in conduct amounting to intimidation, harassment or
molestation of the stalked person.

Lucky for johnboy he only took 1 photo………or did he?

Matty Sullivan said :

Granny said :

In relation to Matty’s comment I can only tell you you’re dreamin’ …. There would be photographs containing AFP personnel in nearly every Canberra home.

Also keeping in mind the photo was taken during a Police investigation. It may have been assumed by said individual Officer that perhaps the Photographer (RiotACT Editor) had images of the offence being committed. It’s in the natural instinct of the Officer to confiscate the camera to search for evidence. The Officer may have also been attempting to conceal the identity of the victim/perpetrator.

Matty, I really, really, really hope that you are right. I hope that the officer was acting in good faith and doing the right thing.

I want to believe in the integrity of our police, but I also want it to be true.

I don’t know the law or the circumstances. If his actions were within the law, I don’t have a problem, except that it would have been sensible (and good public relations) to quote the legal basis of his powers to pursue that course of action.

John is a qualified journalist and has every right to be treated with the respect accorded to those from mainstream media organisations.

Most Australians are appalled when our journalists have their cameras seized in foreign countries and wonder what the authorities were trying to hide.

Matty Sullivan10:47 pm 04 Jul 09

Thanks, Ruby. I stand corrected regarding NSW Law. I thought it was prohibited under the Privacy Act, but I see there are limitations and enforcement capabilities so long as it pertains to a Police investigation.

Ruby Wednesday10:40 pm 04 Jul 09

Generally citing NSW legislation, but this might be of interest: http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.asp

Matty Sullivan keep up the good work.

Matty Sullivan10:35 pm 04 Jul 09

Spideydog said :

Thanks Matty. I was aware of photography in relation to government buildings and alike, but not in regard to photo’s of Police or other public officials.

For note, in the link you provided it does state that there is no law prohibiting photo’s of police being taken, except if is deemed to be offensive behaviour or under hinder/obstruct.

It can also come down to which individual is being photographed. For instance, in the event of a major Police investigation, names, facial features, associations and other primary personally identifiable information (such as a photograph of the victim/offender) may need to be kept discreet throughout the period of the investigation. Leaking information to the general public can be fatal to any criminal or political investigation.

The Law may be different in the ACT, as I said I’m studying for the NT and not the AFP. But you’re right in what the site said and I may have overlooked that. I guess it just depends on the situation and ongoing circumstances surrounding the investigation; whether or not the local authorities feel the need to intervene.

Ruby Wednesday10:31 pm 04 Jul 09

Should be ‘where I work’. I will go flog myself for my own typo now.

Matty Sullivan10:30 pm 04 Jul 09

Granny said :

In relation to Matty’s comment I can only tell you you’re dreamin’ …. There would be photographs containing AFP personnel in nearly every Canberra home.

Also keeping in mind the photo was taken during a Police investigation. It may have been assumed by said individual Officer that perhaps the Photographer (RiotACT Editor) had images of the offence being committed. It’s in the natural instinct of the Officer to confiscate the camera to search for evidence. The Officer may have also been attempting to conceal the identity of the victim/perpetrator.

Ruby Wednesday10:29 pm 04 Jul 09

Spideydog said :

I personally think that people shouldn’t be able to go up and just start taking photos of people without their permission and that have nothing to do with them. In my view it breaches their privacy. People should be able to go about their business without having images taken of them and then plastered on the web or where ever.

Google has that issue with their street view.

Paparazzi in my view should be charged with stalking. No wonder so many celebs are going bonkers. When they confront the photographers, they are demonised. I can understand why they get upset.

Your claim to privacy in a public space is pretty limited, IIRC. And ‘stalking’ involves more than just the act of taking a photograph. If I was chasing you around photographing every move you make and leading you to be in fear of your safety, that is different than taking photographs at the scene of a public incident. Stalking is a series of events rather than a single event.

As for wear I work, part of my job does see me photographed on a regular basis, not that it is hugely relevant here. More to the point, in my job I don’t have the power to arrest people, depriving them of their liberty even temporarily, and I don’t carry a weapon in the conduct of my duty. So, there’s that.

In relation to Matty’s comment I can only tell you you’re dreamin’ …. There would be photographs containing AFP personnel in nearly every Canberra home.

Spideydog said :

I personally think that people shouldn’t be able to go up and just start taking photos of people without their permission and that have nothing to do with them. In my view it breaches their privacy. People should be able to go about their business without having images taken of them and then plastered on the web or where ever.

Google has that issue with their street view.

Paparazzi in my view should be charged with stalking. No wonder so many celebs are going bonkers. When they confront the photographers, they are demonised. I can understand why they get upset.

I totally agree about the paparazzi, Spideydog.

However, I also believe that I should have the right to go to a public concert and take photographs or photograph my kids taking part in the school play regardless of whether there are other kids on stage etc. etc. etc.

“However I do know that it is illegal to photograph (unless specified otherwise, and with proper consent) an AFP Officer or any member of the Law Enforcement. If you’re from the News, fine, as it is at the discretion of the Police to approve the images for publication.”

You may need to study a little harder, as that is bullshit.

Thanks Matty. I was aware of photography in relation to government buildings and alike, but not in regard to photo’s of Police or other public officials.

For note, in the link you provided it does state that there is no law prohibiting photo’s of police being taken, except if is deemed to be offensive behaviour or under hinder/obstruct.

Matty Sullivan10:00 pm 04 Jul 09

Spideydog said :

Matty Sullivan said :

As for ‘not being allowed to photograph APS employees’ – that is quite correct. The APS covers a large array of Government agencies and, as common sense suggests, the photographing of a Government employee is illegal.

What Act is that pertaining too? Not that I don’t believe you, just would add a lot of weight to your argument.

I know that for the Department of Defence it comes under Section 82(1) of the Defence Act 1903. Which prohibits the drawing, sketching, photographing or illustrating of any military building, base, or quarters unless otherwise noted. I believe this does also cover Government buildings.

http://www.caslon.com.au/photonote10.htm

I am currently studying to join NT Policing so I will find out for you tomorrow and post back. However I do know that it is illegal to photograph (unless specified otherwise, and with proper consent) an AFP Officer or any member of the Law Enforcement. If you’re from the News, fine, as it is at the discretion of the Police to approve the images for publication.

Did anyone see who stabbed the preacher?

It tends to be self inflicted in people with a mental illness (speculating)

If that’s the case – it’s very sad indeed.

I personally think that people shouldn’t be able to go up and just start taking photos of people without their permission and that have nothing to do with them. In my view it breaches their privacy. People should be able to go about their business without having images taken of them and then plastered on the web or where ever. Google has that issue with their street view.

Paparazzi in my view should be charged with stalking. No wonder so many celebs are going bonkers. When they confront the photographers, they are demonised. I can understand why they get upset.

Auntyem said :

Very interesting that the photo either be deleted OR used as evidence – this is a disturbing scenario indeed.

Did anyone see who stabbed the preacher?

It tends to be self inflicted in people with a mental illness (speculating)

Very interesting that the photo either be deleted OR used as evidence – this is a disturbing scenario indeed.

Did anyone see who stabbed the preacher?

Ruby Wednesday said :

Considering police are supposed to have a high level of integrity, someone taking photos of them doing their job in public should be an expected part of the job. Scrutiny of those with exceptional powers is an appropriate check on that power.

I’m sorry, but random, unknown people walking up to you and taking photos of you has absolutely nothing to do with the subject’s level of integrity. Please tell me, was the purpose of this photo for scrutiny, as you suggest? Or just to show one’s mates on one’s website?

Ruby Wednesday said :

And taking pictures of anything that happens in a public place is entirely legal, whether you like it or not. (Though apparently the law makes exception for taking pictures of children that don’t belong to you, or something equally stupid.)

Where do you work Ruby Wednesday? I’d like to follow you and take happy snaps of you out and about in public places while you work. If you spot me, you might like to PHONE 000, as it’s called stalking!!!!

“Oh, but it was only one photo.” I say. But then I post it on a public forum and promote public discussion about your actions….

OK? I think not.

Matty Sullivan said :

As for ‘not being allowed to photograph APS employees’ – that is quite correct. The APS covers a large array of Government agencies and, as common sense suggests, the photographing of a Government employee is illegal.

What Act is that pertaining too? Not that I don’t believe you, just would add a lot of weight to your argument.

Or when the Queen comes to visit. Or Barack Obama.

So basically we’re not allowed to photograph events such as the torch relay, because there’s some AFP officer lurking in every second frame.

Hell, they really should publicise that law better. I am a serial offender.

From memory, the officer is well within his rights to ask you to delete the picture from your camera. I don’t remember under what law etc and I can’t really be bothered looking for the reference. I think under the Privacy Act may be the one off the top of my head, but I’m sure there’s other laws related to public officials and perhaps the terrorism laws.

Whether or not they’re good laws is a whole other argument..

Matty Sullivan said :

However, there is such a thing as Personnel Security. As an AFP Officer, his or her personal security may be at risk at the publication of photos clearly showing the Officer(s). He was well within the law to ask you to remove the images from your camera.

Pity he couldn’t be bothered mentioning that in the first place.

I asked under what power he was making the demand. He replied, as close as I can recall it:

“If you don’t delete that photograph I will confiscate your camera as evidence”

Matty Sullivan9:21 pm 04 Jul 09

caf said :

If they delete the photos from your camera, they’re destroying your property.

Yes; they are. However, there is such a thing as Personnel Security. As an AFP Officer, his or her personal security may be at risk at the publication of photos clearly showing the Officer(s). He was well within the law to ask you to remove the images from your camera.

As for ‘not being allowed to photograph APS employees’ – that is quite correct. The APS covers a large array of Government agencies and, as common sense suggests, the photographing of a Government employee is illegal. Such as it is illegal to photograph Government buildings without prior consent to do so. How many people do you see walking up and taking a few snap shots of HQJOC, ASIO, DFAT or ASIS? You don’t.

Deye – That only applies to New South Wales; who, if I am correct, are not Federal Police Officers. They are part of NSW Policing, not the AFP. Separate jurisdiction and Laws.

I would like to see a “funny caption” competition based around this pic with all entries sent to the officer in question with a request for him to judge the winner.

Looks to me like he’s thinking something along the lines of “Damn im being photographed & I’m not sure if these purple gloves clash with my uniform yet”.

#18 Wednesday. If that ever happens again be sure to tell the police officer that you want the moron that grabbed your arm charged with assault.

Once people have considered their ‘rights’ to take a photo of whatever they choose, would you consider the rights of those people who are in your photos?

What if they don’t want their photo taken and published anywhere? Public servants still have a right to privacy, even if their job requires that they conduct their work in a public place.

@ Ruby Wednesday – how would you feel if I followed you to and from your car at your workplace taking photos? Technically, for insurance purposes, you are at your place of work. Perhaps you work at the tax office and I want to record your level of integrity? Your argument suggest that it would be ok for me to stand at your office door and photograph your actions.

Also, I don’t have kids, but if a stranger was openly and deliberately taking photos of them, I would definitely have a problem with that.

IIRC they need a court order to have you delete a photo from your camera.
If you were standing on public property (ie the footpath) you can take photos of whatever you like.
Have a look through http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

That’s true, Thumper. And that is a terrible thing.

But a free society will outlive every one of us, if we are vigilant.

We are already not as free as we would like to think. If the police will not champion our cultural values of freedom and democracy, who will?

I……………………DO SWEAR – THAT – I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE – OUR SOVEREIGN LADY THE QUEEN – AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOUR OR AFFECTION – MALICE OR ILL-WILL – UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED – THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE – HER MAJESTY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED – AND THAT – I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER – ALL OFFENCES AGAINST THAT PEACE – AND THAT – WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER – I WILL – TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE – DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF – FAITHFULLY – ACCORDING TO LAW.

Using a position of authority to unlawfully confiscate property and harass innocent bystanders is a disgraceful abuse of power. I am shocked that any police officer could support this behaviour.

I hope the injured person recovers.

Ugly about the camera. But well done on recovering the photo — it’s funny how delete doesn’t really mean delete.

I took a photo of a minor car crash on a busy intersection once (no one appeared to be injured), whereupon some middle aged guy grabbed my arm and dragged me across the road to the attending policeman. Referring to me, he said something along the lines of, “I saw this guy drive past before! He was the P-plater speeding past when my wife crashed the car, and now he’s back taking photos of his handiwork!”. I said, “Mate, you’re crazy; I’ve just driven here from about 50 km away. I’m sorry — I was just taking a photo.” The policeman looked at me and shrugged and walked off! I guess your policeman just didn’t like having a photo taken of him. It’s understandable that people get upset, but they get irrational when cameras are involved.

If I had a coin for every time a construction worker has said, “Oi! It’s illegal to take photos of private property — don’t take that photo or I’ll… [raises fist and looks menacing]”…

inner-northsider8:32 pm 04 Jul 09

If you take photos of a crime or crime scene then they can be used as evidence and your camera and all its contents can be confiscated. However, there’s a problem as every passer-by with a camera phone and a blog will want a quick snap which then means that rather than investigate and lock down the scene the police have to argue with these passer-byes over whether or not their cameras are allowed to be confiscated. The policeman probably didnt have the time or interest in getting into such an argument with you so he gave you the option to delete it.

You are right that technically this might be against the laws of evidence (although unlikely), however bear in mind that when evidence act was written there was no such thing as camera phones or blogs. When you rush out to take photos of a crime scene you make it a lot more difficult for the police to do their job.

You might also bear in mind the fact that this post itself will prejudice the right of ‘the preacher’ to a fair trial. You’ve asserted in the title that the preacher was the stabber and, even if that seems self evident to you and to me too (I was in the IGA when it happened), courts like juries to make up their own minds on the facts and the evidence provided.

For the record I thought the police did a pretty good job in getting there in less than 2 minutes, although I was a little dismayed as to why it took close to 10 for an ambulance to arrive

Depends on what photo is taken. Say for exmple in the above incident the bloke dies – your photo could constitute evidence in a coronial. As for happy snaps of the public I generally don’t care. If your phone could add evidence to an offence then I have no problems in requesting it. Better to get details and then get a copy of the photo.

The photo above will cost that bloke a case of beer. Good enough reason to try some bluff to get it deleted.

Ruby Wednesday8:19 pm 04 Jul 09

Panhead said :

Lets look at it this way, would you like a random person taking pictures of you doing your job uninvited? Or even just taking photos of you in public?

Considering police are supposed to have a high level of integrity, someone taking photos of them doing their job in public should be an expected part of the job. Scrutiny of those with exceptional powers is an appropriate check on that power.

And taking pictures of anything that happens in a public place is entirely legal, whether you like it or not. (Though apparently the law makes exception for taking pictures of children that don’t belong to you, or something equally stupid.)

Deadmandrinking8:16 pm 04 Jul 09

Panhead said :

Lets look at it this way, would you like a random person taking pictures of you doing your job uninvited? Or even just taking photos of you in public?

My job usually doesn’t involve stabbings.

Your point…failed.

wellfargyaden8:16 pm 04 Jul 09

and furthermore… given they (almost a dozen police) are still there more than 4 hours later, have you stopped to give thought to the welfare of the victim, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of him, he may have subsequently died given the intensity of the police effort at the scene or any concern about the safety of our streets and community areas or even about the lack of mental health support that might have contributed to this incident? Does anyone know what the state of the victim is?

Lets look at it this way, would you like a random person taking pictures of you doing your job uninvited? Or even just taking photos of you in public?

Ruby Wednesday8:08 pm 04 Jul 09

Spideydog said :

TAD said :

It must be something learned or taught. I just remember a local youtube clip I saw a while back.

Check out the last thing said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KZstpkS8go

The guy was about to assault the Police officer and as such, the video is evidence. Don’t see the issue in that one.

Even in that one, there’s no reason to seize the phone ‘for evidence’ if he takes another photo. That it is worded as a threat (‘If you take another photo, your phone suddenly becomes evidence) means that she clearly thinks she doesn’t need the phone or its contents and she has no way of telling what future photos would contain and thus provide evidence of.

wellfargyaden8:03 pm 04 Jul 09

I don’t know about photographing a public servant but I have heard before that photographing a police officer in the course of their duty (without authority) is an offence, although presumably not often enforced. Did you stop to think though that maybe the police officer was trying to protect whatever dignity the Preacher may have still had? It was bad enough that he was sitting there, handcuffed and bleeding in front of the dozens of on gawkers (of whom I was one)without someone stepping out of the pub between pints to take a photo of him. He presumably couldn’t be placed in the van untill he’d been treated by ambos for his own bleeding (I understand he cut himself probbaly on the knife he used as a weapon). Imagine if one of your kids had been picked up for shoplifting and as they were being led away some prat stepped out of the pub to take a photo of them, I know how I’d feel.

It was pretty obvious it was not welcome.

Mike Bessenger7:58 pm 04 Jul 09

Looked more like he was trying to give her a happy new year cuddle.

TAD said :

It must be something learned or taught. I just remember a local youtube clip I saw a while back.

Check out the last thing said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KZstpkS8go

The guy was about to assault the Police officer and as such, the video is evidence. Don’t see the issue in that one.

Deadmandrinking7:44 pm 04 Jul 09

Saw the police on my way back from work on the bus, about maybe 20 minutes ago, was wondering what that was.

This is the worse aspect of mental illness. I hope the guy who got stabbed in the neck will be alright, and I hope the ‘preacher’ gets some help. Sounds like he may need to be institutionalized for a while. Insert rant about mental health services here…which will inevitably come down to cost-effectiveness having nothing to do with reality.

On the photo issue…what a disgusting display from our local plods. Didn’t they have a job to do, I don’t know, dealing with the scene of a STABBING, rather than harassing picture-takers?

It must be something learned or taught. I just remember a local youtube clip I saw a while back.

Check out the last thing said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KZstpkS8go

Cops are still there. It’s a bit scary that this happens in the neighbourhood, and here I was worried about moving back to West Belco 🙂

Mike Bessenger7:27 pm 04 Jul 09

I was in a similar situtation a few years a go where a policeman confronted me and said I have to delete the photos I have taken or I would find myself in trouble. In front of a small crowd (about 25) I told him that I know my rights and that infront of a crowd of witnesses it was not in his best interests to be making threats. I continued to take photo’s as he walked off. If I didn’t have witnesses I’m sure I would of been arrested and beat uo in the back of the van.
Stand your ground, and they will soon back off.

This is really, really serious actually. What johnboy said. I think questions need to be asked at the highest levels.

What were they thinking??

I’m more saddened by what happened to this guy (The Preacher). I’ve seen him in Civic several times now, most recently on Tuesday this week, running through his script outside the old Starbucks. I thought he was harmless and well-meaning. Something must have set him off.

It’s a public place so you can snap away to your heart’s content. The copper was just bluffing you as he didn’t want to be photographed working.

Next time call his bluff. A whole world of hurt would come down on him if he had seized your camera.

Is that him in the pic? I myself have always liked pics from the public as it makes the brief much stronger.

Oh and as for “But you aren’t permitted to take pictures of Public Servants doing their job.“, I call bullshit.

If they delete the photos from your camera, they’re destroying your property.

From what I have been told you can pictures of what ever happens in public. But you aren’t permitted to take pictures of Public Servants doing their job. In fact it may be best if the the face of the Police Officers are blacked out. As the officer could be identified & problems could arise it.

But if your photo was saved onto your memory card, if they enforced you hand the in the picture as evidence, just give them the memory card.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.