[VinnyP]

I'd only ever heard of this being used when the person photographed was a child before.

[Leezon]

I like the way they called her 'ill' she was bloody drunk!

I thought that it wasnt against the law in this country to take photos of strangers without their permission?

[Rob Barron]

This is an interesting case and the Sheriff should be dismissed for misconduct as he had no right to pass that sentence in my opinion! Giving a £100 fine because he wanted to remind him that 'the age of chivalry is not dead' is bang out of order. Since when has 'not being chivalrous' been a crime punishable by a fine? That sheriff might not like it but that doesn't make what this guy did a crme.

Indeed I personally think the man was badly advised in terms of the law as he made the mistake of pleading guilty. By doing that the sheriff could impose a fine and say whatever he wanted. Had he pleaded not guilty, it would have been nigh on impossible for the sheriff to find him guilty under due process of law, even in Scotland as far as I am aware.

A person drunk in the street and throwing up is not 'an ill woman' and nobody in the street has an automatic right to privacy per se. Remember I am only talking about the law here, not my opinion of whether the guy was being morally right or behaving in an appropriate manner. Personally I think it was probably a bit rough to take a photo of this woman in her condition but one thing is for absolute certainty: had that been a drunk man 'getting some air because he felt unwell' and someone had take a photo there is no way that sheriff would have imposed this fine. It is a dangerous scenario indeed when you start imposing the law on one gender when you wouldn't over another.

Oh well, just another example of the law being an ass, nothing new there then LOL

Cheers,
Rob

[brian wright22]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

This is an interesting case and the Sheriff should be dismissed for misconduct as he had no right to pass that sentence in my opinion! Giving a £100 fine because he wanted to remind him that 'the age of chivalry is not dead' is bang out of order. Since when has 'not being chivalrous' been a crime punishable by a fine? That sheriff might not like it but that doesn't make what this guy did a crme.

Indeed I personally think the man was badly advised in terms of the law as he made the mistake of pleading guilty. By doing that the sheriff could impose a fine and say whatever he wanted. Had he pleaded not guilty, it would have been nigh on impossible for the sheriff to find him guilty under due process of law, even in Scotland as far as I am aware.

A person drunk in the street and throwing up is not 'an ill woman' and nobody in the street has an automatic right to privacy per se. Remember I am only talking about the law here, not my opinion of whether the guy was being morally right or behaving in an appropriate manner. Personally I think it was probably a bit rough to take a photo of this woman in her condition but one thing is for absolute certainty: had that been a drunk man 'getting some air because he felt unwell' and someone had take a photo there is no way that sheriff would have imposed this fine. It is a dangerous scenario indeed when you start imposing the law on one gender when you wouldn't over another.

Oh well, just another example of the law being an ass, nothing new there then LOL

Cheers,
Rob

Better make the most of these forums to express ourselves. I see the Government has given the go ahead for £12 Billion expendature at GCHQ to establish a database to monitor and if necessary record data on all Text/e-mails and web surfing sites and well as monitoring our telephones .

Also probably more cctv cameras to catch us taking pictures in public!!! . I thought there was poverty in this country ? but they can still find the money to tighten the police state screws further.

[gsgary]

As far as i'm concerned she was fair game

[samleo]

What about reportage type photography? There are constant videos showing yobbish drunken "ill" behavior on the streets of our cities on my local news programs, has the guy with the badge set a precedence? Rob is absolutely right!

[sejanus]

I'd imagine that the photographer has strong grounds for appealing the decision. Albeit that Scottish law hasn't actually emerged from the 13th Century, I doubt any appeal court would find that a breach of the peace had been committed, or was likely to be, by the photographer. It's obvious that he was very badly advised, if he took advice from a lawyer.

Lazy coppers love the 'Breach of the Peace', on the grounds that they can accuse you of that for blowing your nose loudly.

[VinnyP]

It's not specifically about there being no law against taking a photograph, there is no specific law against swearing and shouting either but it is an offence (in Scotland) to cause someone (Upset) which can be applied to both circumstances if appropriate, in the UK the similar legislation requires the act itself to be insulting and unreasonable.

I think it was very heavy handed to do anything about this unless there was more than met the eye but it could easily have fitted the offence.

We need to promote ouselves as responsible photographers, there is a large group of MPs who want legislation to make it clear that it's legal to take photographs in public. You can bet the media will be pushing for this as well as photographers but this govt in fact all governments will almost certainly introduce a bill that says "You can take photographs in public except". We need to be able to reject the excepts. The bad egg paps and stories like this will not help, how long before someone mentions Diana in Paris?

[hoffy]

This poor bloke has been fined a £100 for taking a picture of this young lady. Next week she is ITV4 on the CCTV program doing the same act is that gong to court.

Is she going to fined for littering.

[gsgary]

Was it Fiona

[lifethrualens]

its his own fault for pleading guilty to it, idiot, he didnt break the laW

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by lifethrualens

its his own fault for pleading guilty to it, idiot, he didnt break the laW

If the prosecutor or the police thought that, he would not have been prosecuted. If the Sherrif when hearing the cirumstances (either from the prosecution or the basis of plea from the defence) thought that he hadn't he would have substituted a not guilty plea. His Lawyer also advised him to plead guilty. I don't know whether he would have been convicted had he pleaded not guilty but on the facts presented the case was made out.


Remember all they have to show is that his actions were likely to or did in fact cause someone upset, whether that should in itself be an offence is a separate issue as it's a different position in England.

[simpbow]

Who ever it was they were doing no harm & weren't drunk.

[the_frog]

Preposterous, and the thin end of an ugly wedge. He sadly did us all a great disservice by pleading guilty. Unfortunately the law-enforcers too often prove to be ignorant of the law - Detective sargeant Bell of the Brighton constabulary please take note.

[the_frog]

Originally Posted by VinnyP

If the prosecutor or the police thought that, he would not have been prosecuted.

Not so. They were chancing it and I suspect the Sherriff was actually a cowboy. The guy was prosecuted for a breach of the peace. In 1982 the court of appeal said of a breach of the peace:-

"even in these days when affrays, riotous behaviour and other disturbances happen all too frequently, we cannot accept that there can be a breach of the peace unless there has been an act done or threatened to be done which either actually harms a person, or in his presence his property, or is likely to cause such harm, which puts someone in fear if such harm being done."

No such harm, or threat of harm, took place. This should never have gone to court and his solicitor must be some kind of incompetent.

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by the_frog

Not so. They were chancing it and I suspect the Sherriff was actually a cowboy. The guy was prosecuted for a breach of the peace. In 1982 the court of appeal said of a breach of the peace:-

"even in these days when affrays, riotous behaviour and other disturbances happen all too frequently, we cannot accept that there can be a breach of the peace unless there has been an act done or threatened to be done which either actually harms a person, or in his presence his property, or is likely to cause such harm, which puts someone in fear if such harm being done."

.

Great except that's england this was in Scotland where it's . When one or more persons conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges

Disorderly has been held to be "of a nature that would cause concern to other people" The key point to prove are that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident. and it was reasonable to suppose that someone may be by your actions. No one gets fined for Breach of the Peace in England and Wales.

[Markulous]

I know nothing of the circumstances but I'd think the (presumably court appointed but it doesn't say) solicitor would've acted in his/her client's best interests in suggesting he plead guilty.

As to why the Sheriff decided to prosecute, maybe he was trying to make a point - and a point well made if you consider the Derby teenager suicide FOXNews.com - 'How Far Can You Bounce?' Shouts Push Suicidal Teen to Death Leap

[Rob Barron]

Aww hardly Mark! That case was extremely different and the police said they were not even going to look for the evil minded little hoodlums who shouted those unspeakable comments to someone clearly in major distress. Comparing that to someone taking a photo of a drunk woman is a bit like comparing the problems a kid got into when his canoe sprang a leak in the local park with the sinking of the Titanic!

I was stunned when I read what the police said about the suicide case. They were 'shocked and appalled' but 'no crime had been committed' so if that isn't disturbance of the peace then this photo most certainly wasn't!

[Leezon]

At the end of the day, this guy took a shot of a woman puking her guts up because she had too much to drink.

Its absolutely pathetic that this went to court and the court system should be ashamed of themselves!

Mark I think its pretty sad of you to compare this to a case where someone died!

[James]

In my opinion, that is a blatant disregard for the man's rights. I am appalled that the sheriff had no disciplinary actions against him after such an incident. I have 3 words for that women: Get over it!

The man did share some of the blame by pleading guilty, though. Even I, a teenager, know the law better than to plead guilty for taking a picture of someone in public.

On another note, is this forum predominately UK based?