Police wrongly seize photographer's camera after crash
in [UK Photography]
|
Prev: Home Secretary announces review of ant-terror legislation
Next: Compact Digital with Viewfinder.
From: spike1 on 22 Jul 2010 18:02 And verily, didst Richard Miller <richard(a)seasalter0.demon.co.uk> hastily babble thusly: > In message <pan.2010.07.22.15.50.20.386202(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil > Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes >>It didn't take long. >> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745 >> >>Police wrongly seize photographer's camera after crash >> >>An investigation is under way after police seized a photographer's camera >>and images were later deleted from it. >> > > Deleting the photographs amounts to criminal damage, and the officer who > did it should be prosecuted. And destruction of evidence. -- | spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | | | Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't | | in | suck is probably the day they start making | | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
From: John Bean on 23 Jul 2010 04:47 In article <f1eh46htlfod5bma3l2gok2idtipkse954(a)4ax.com>, mike(a)corestore.org says... > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:36:50 +0100, Richard Miller > <richard(a)seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >In message <pan.2010.07.22.15.50.20.386202(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil > >Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes > >>It didn't take long. > >> > >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745 > >> > >>Police wrongly seize photographer's camera after crash > >> > >>An investigation is under way after police seized a photographer's camera > >>and images were later deleted from it. > >> > > > >Deleting the photographs amounts to criminal damage, and the officer who > >did it should be prosecuted. > > > >I'm not holding my breath though. > > Don't hold your breath, but maybe the officer will indeed end up prosecuted. > This case is sufficiently egregious that, even if the police decline to > prosecute, the NUJ might well bring a private prosecution, to settle the issue > publicly and permanently. The problem will be proof; it will be difficult if not impossible to prove exactly who did the deletion, or even if it actually happened. The officer concerned need only claim that he did not do it, the burden of proof then lies with the prosecution. Could the photographer prove the images even existed in the first place? I'm sure they did, but could he prove it in court? -- John Bean
From: Phil Stovell on 23 Jul 2010 05:01 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:47:38 +0100, John Bean wrote: > In article <f1eh46htlfod5bma3l2gok2idtipkse954(a)4ax.com>, > mike(a)corestore.org says... >> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:36:50 +0100, Richard Miller >> <richard(a)seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >In message <pan.2010.07.22.15.50.20.386202(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil >> >Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes >> >>It didn't take long. >> >> >> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745 >> >> >> >>Police wrongly seize photographer's camera after crash >> >> >> >>An investigation is under way after police seized a photographer's >> >>camera and images were later deleted from it. >> >> >> >> >> >Deleting the photographs amounts to criminal damage, and the officer >> >who did it should be prosecuted. >> > >> >I'm not holding my breath though. >> >> Don't hold your breath, but maybe the officer will indeed end up >> prosecuted. This case is sufficiently egregious that, even if the police >> decline to prosecute, the NUJ might well bring a private prosecution, to >> settle the issue publicly and permanently. > > The problem will be proof; it will be difficult if not impossible to prove > exactly who did the deletion, or even if it actually happened. > > The officer concerned need only claim that he did not do it, the burden of > proof then lies with the prosecution. Could the photographer prove the > images even existed in the first place? I'm sure they did, but could he > prove it in court? "Thames Valley Police returned the camera with images they put on to a disc." They must have downloaded the images, then deleted them off the camera, then copied them to a disk (all of them?) to give back to him. That proves everything, except who did the deleting.
From: Jethro on 23 Jul 2010 05:05 On 23 July, 10:01, Phil Stovell <p...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:47:38 +0100, John Bean wrote: > > In article <f1eh46htlfod5bma3l2gok2idtipkse...(a)4ax.com>, > > m...(a)corestore.org says... > > >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:36:50 +0100, Richard Miller > >> <rich...(a)seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >> >In message <pan.2010.07.22.15.50.20.386...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil > >> >Stovell <p...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes > >> >>It didn't take long. > > >> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745 > > >> >>Police wrongly seize photographer's camera after crash > > >> >>An investigation is under way after police seized a photographer's > >> >>camera and images were later deleted from it. > > >> >Deleting the photographs amounts to criminal damage, and the officer > >> >who did it should be prosecuted. > > >> >I'm not holding my breath though. > > >> Don't hold your breath, but maybe the officer will indeed end up > >> prosecuted. This case is sufficiently egregious that, even if the police > >> decline to prosecute, the NUJ might well bring a private prosecution, to > >> settle the issue publicly and permanently. > > > The problem will be proof; it will be difficult if not impossible to prove > > exactly who did the deletion, or even if it actually happened. > > > The officer concerned need only claim that he did not do it, the burden of > > proof then lies with the prosecution. Could the photographer prove the > > images even existed in the first place? I'm sure they did, but could he > > prove it in court? > > "Thames Valley Police returned the camera with images they put on to a > disc." > > They must have downloaded the images, then deleted them off the camera, > then copied them to a disk (all of them?) to give back to him. That proves > everything, except who did the deleting.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - which leads to a question ... was any "damage" done ?
From: Phil Stovell on 23 Jul 2010 05:09
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:05:09 -0700, Jethro wrote: > On 23 July, 10:01, Phil Stovell <p...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:47:38 +0100, John Bean wrote: >> > In article <f1eh46htlfod5bma3l2gok2idtipkse...(a)4ax.com>, >> > m...(a)corestore.org says... >> >> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:36:50 +0100, Richard Miller >> >> <rich...(a)seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >In message <pan.2010.07.22.15.50.20.386...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, >> >> >Phil Stovell <p...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes >> >> >>It didn't take long. >> >> >> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745 >> >> >> >>Police wrongly seize photographer's camera after crash >> >> >> >>An investigation is under way after police seized a photographer's >> >> >>camera and images were later deleted from it. >> >> >> >Deleting the photographs amounts to criminal damage, and the officer >> >> >who did it should be prosecuted. >> >> >> >I'm not holding my breath though. >> >> >> Don't hold your breath, but maybe the officer will indeed end up >> >> prosecuted. This case is sufficiently egregious that, even if the >> >> police decline to prosecute, the NUJ might well bring a private >> >> prosecution, to settle the issue publicly and permanently. >> >> > The problem will be proof; it will be difficult if not impossible to >> > prove exactly who did the deletion, or even if it actually happened. >> >> > The officer concerned need only claim that he did not do it, the >> > burden of proof then lies with the prosecution. Could the photographer >> > prove the images even existed in the first place? I'm sure they did, >> > but could he prove it in court? >> >> "Thames Valley Police returned the camera with images they put on to a >> disc." >> >> They must have downloaded the images, then deleted them off the camera, >> then copied them to a disk (all of them?) to give back to him. That >> proves everything, except who did the deleting.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > which leads to a question ... was any "damage" done ? Is it criminal damage to delete photos? Were all images returned? |