Photographer guilty of “disorderly behaviour causing offense” for street photo

[Gabriel M.A.]

The magistrate's comments left the door open for legal clarification via appeal, however the report indicates this is unlikely due to lack of funds.

Justice may be blind, but definitely has a nose for cash. 😛

 

[Keith]

You must remember this one Lynn. The Bondi Council tried to have photography banned on their beach ... luckily a New South Wales magistrate set them straight and told them where to go.

This all started after the Rex Dupain fiasco when he was arrested for photographing a couple sleeping on the beach with his Hasselblad!

 

[PRJ]

Wow. Seems the dude with the IPhone should have charged the boyfriend with assault and theft. Stupid. That is what I would have done, at least in the US. Don't know what the law is like is Australia.

 

[Black]

Can't see this one flying in the UK, although the quote about "Some members of the public did object to him taking photos without permission" sounds close enough to "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" to be a candidate for a police caution.

Just for the record, in the UK, to constitute a breach of the peace (or attempt, or "likely to..") the offenders behaviour must be judged to be about to become violent or near to causing criminal damage, so I'd argue that it wouldn't be behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace and a Police caution would only be applicable if said "offender" admitted the offence.

 

[Sparrow]

It would be nice to know what was the "one photograph in particular" that the boyfriend and magistrate found offensive ...

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Just for the record, in the UK, to constitute a breach of the peace (or attempt, or "likely to..") the offenders behaviour must be judged to be about to become violent or near to causing criminal damage

I'm afraid you're not quite right there. I've checked with a reliable source (offspring and their partner, who are both coppers). The offence is much broader than that and there apparently is no need for the arrestee to be or likely to be violent. Indeed, the offence is exactly what it sounds like.

Wikipedia describes it well: "In England and Wales, constables (or citizens) are permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows for the police or the public to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when it is reasonable to believe should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur."

In many cases, people are arrested in this manner, because their presence or behaviour is likely to cause other people to breach the peace. The classic example is rival football fans. When fans of the visiting team display their team's colours and chant their team's songs in front of the home team's fans, the police are well within their powers to instruct the visiting fans to cease and desist, and to arrest them if they fail to do so. The reason for the arrest is the likely behaviour of the (usually) more numerous home fans.

:angel:

 

[clayne]

I hate to say it, but welcome to the Commonwealth. This kind of thing is common in British style judicial systems. We have some tea over here for when you get tired of these abusive and overreaching laws.

 

[Black]

I'm afraid you're not quite right there. I've checked with a reliable source (offspring and their partner, who are both coppers). The offence is much broader than that and there apparently is no need for the arrestee to be or likely to be violent. Indeed, the offence is exactly what it sounds like.

Wikipedia describes it well: "In England and Wales, constables (or citizens) are permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows for the police or the public to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when it is reasonable to believe should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur."

There's no requirement that the person themselves is likely to or even might be violent or destructive. In numerous cases, people are arrested in this manner, because their presence or behaviour is likely to cause other people to breach the peace. The classic example is rival football fans. When fans of the visiting team display their team's colours and chant their team's songs in front of the home team's fans, the police are well within their powers to instruct the visiting fans to cease and desist, and to arrest them if they fail to do so. The reason for the arrest is the likely behaviour of the (usually) more numerous home fans.

:angel:

Okay. Couple of anomalies with what you have posted.

Preventing a further Breach of the Peace is a separate measure than the offence of Breaching the Peace.

Prevent a Breach of the Peace (hither to referred to as PBOP) is a preventative measure, where by there is a likelihood of criminal damage or violence if a situation is left to escalate.

A breach of the peace (BOP) is a summary offence whereby the offenders behaviour, being likely to escalate to criminal damage or violence is witnessed by a police officer and is ongoing.

I would never rely on Wikipedia in matters of criminal law. I would hope that most briefs, custody sergeants, magistrates and judges don't. And I know cops don't.

The example of the football fans is misleading, to say the least. Not only as there are separate and specific legislation for football matches, not withstanding that offences under Public Order would be more suitable, but more so that it is simply misinformed.

I appreciate that you have offspring who are "in the job", but either something has been lost in translation or they are mistaken. The only reason why I am so sure is that I have had to prosecute for a BOP (which is unusual in itself) and have had the points to prove hammered into my skull before the court hearing. I'm a serving cop, by the way.

 

[j j]

Any links to something more official than a forum post that says a website says someone's facebook page says someone in their town had a problem?

 

[Sparrow]

I hate to say it, but welcome to the Commonwealth. This kind of thing is common in British style judicial systems. We have some tea over here for when you get tired of these abusive and overreaching laws.

... really? how do you explain this then

 

[Black]

Any links to something more official than a forum post that says a website says someone's facebook page says someone in their town had a problem?

Sure. The Police National Legal Database is the national guide for points to prove, definitions and legal prosecution guidance.

Re BOP, you could find associated topic and stated cases here: https://www.pnld.co.uk/docportal/content/@419.htm

One caveat, though: General members of the public can't access it 😀

Note stated cases such as Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex and Foulkes v CC Merseyside - without even accessing the meat of the cases, from their summarised titles, you can kind of figure out what the main crux is.

 

[clayne]

... really? how do you explain this then

Don't think for a second that I think the incarceration rate of the US is something I agree with. I personally think it's deplorable. This isn't a black and white wave the red white and blue around we can do no wrong analysis - I'm simply pointing out that Commonwealth countries are known for their typical state nannyism and the people putting up with it.

 

[Sparrow]

Don't think for a second that I think the incarceration rate of the US is something I agree with. I personally think it's deplorable. This isn't a black and white wave the red white and blue around we can do no wrong analysis - I'm simply pointing out that Commonwealth countries are known for their typical state nannyism and the people putting up with it.

I was once cautioned by a police officer in Philadelphia for crossing the road in an improper manner yet I still manage not to make sweeping statements about the USA's legal system or stereotype it's citizens

 

[pakeha]

mmm...Perth -night time - iphone- "photographer"? i doubt it.
Probably some detail missing in this story.
make that possibly

 

[The Expanding Man]

I'm actually a criminal lawyer by trade and live in Perth.

I hadn't heard of this case - but Magistrates deal with hundreds of cases every week here.

It needs an appeal. Common sense tells me you have to apply a "reasonableness" test. You can't have a person convicted just because someone takes offense. It must be reasonable in the circumstances to take offense.

If anyone can actually locate this guy please send me a PM.

 

[clayne]

I was once cautioned by a police officer in Philadelphia for crossing the road in an improper manner yet I still manage not to make sweeping statements about the USA's legal system or stereotype it's citizens

Yes, because being cautioned by a police officer is the same as a magistrate finding you guilty, right?

 

[pakeha]

I'm actually a criminal lawyer by trade and live in Perth.

I hadn't heard of this case - but Magistrates deal with hundreds of cases every week here.

It needs an appeal. Common sense tells me you have to apply a "reasonableness" test. You can't have a person convicted just because someone takes offense. It must be reasonable in the circumstances to take offense.

If anyone can actually locate this guy please send me a PM.

touting for business on a forum? I`m offended and i need a lawyer now🙂

 

[The Expanding Man]

I'd be prepared to look into it on a pro bono basis.

 

[pakeha]

I'd be prepared to look into it on a pro bono basis.

it was a "tongue in cheek "post 🙂
On a more serious note though, come on,you know Perth night life..bet there is more to this

 

[Sparrow]

Yes, because being cautioned by a police officer is the same as a magistrate finding you guilty, right?

No clearly not, I don't see your point.

I was pointing out that legislating as to how one crosses the road would seem to fit a definition of nanny-state, no?