Taking photos without consent is a crime in Scotland ?

[Ian Jackson]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-21065040

Aberdeen man admits taking 70,000 photos of women

An Aberdeen man has admitted taking more than 70,000 photos of women
walking past his flat.

Oil worker Andrew Lawrence, 45, admitted breach of the peace by taking
the shots without their permission.

...

Under what other circumstances would taking someone's photo without
their consent constitute breach of the peace ? I look forward to
prosecutions of paparazzi, but less so to those of cctv operators,
tourists and activists.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e1r*XV...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-21065040
>
> Aberdeen man admits taking 70,000 photos of women
>
> An Aberdeen man has admitted taking more than 70,000 photos of women
> walking past his flat.
>
> Oil worker Andrew Lawrence, 45, admitted breach of the peace by taking
> the shots without their permission.
>
> ...
>
> Under what other circumstances would taking someone's photo without
> their consent constitute breach of the peace ? I look forward to
> prosecutions of paparazzi, but less so to those of cctv operators,
> tourists and activists.
>

If it's just normal photos of fully dressed passers by I can't see much
illegal about it. Odd, but not illegal.

If he's got a camera positioned to take photos up skirts or down tops then
that's more dodgy, and the mention of a sexual element in the report
suggests something of this nature.

The Scottish version of Breach of the Peace is also different to England -
"conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten
serious disturbance to the community". Voyeuristic photos on a large scale
could conceivably meet the definition.

It would certainly alarm ordinary people, and the serious disturbance would
then occur when the angry mob descends upon his house with pitchforks and
flaming torches.



--
Alex

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-01-18, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-21065040
>
> Aberdeen man admits taking 70,000 photos of women
>
> An Aberdeen man has admitted taking more than 70,000 photos of women
> walking past his flat.
>
> Oil worker Andrew Lawrence, 45, admitted breach of the peace by taking
> the shots without their permission.
>
> ...
>
> Under what other circumstances would taking someone's photo without
> their consent constitute breach of the peace ?

Any situation in which the defendant pleads guilty, I should imagine.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-01-18, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

> If it's just normal photos of fully dressed passers by I can't see much
> illegal about it. Odd, but not illegal.
>
> If he's got a camera positioned to take photos up skirts or down tops then
> that's more dodgy, and the mention of a sexual element in the report
> suggests something of this nature.

The article mentions "placed on the sex offenders register" but
doesn't explain why; it says "taking more than 70,000 photos of women
walking past his flat"; unless the flat was in the basement?

> The Scottish version of Breach of the Peace is also different to England -
> "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten
> serious disturbance to the community". Voyeuristic photos on a large scale
> could conceivably meet the definition.
>
> It would certainly alarm ordinary people, and the serious disturbance would
> then occur when the angry mob descends upon his house with pitchforks and
> flaming torches.

Well, that's going to stifle a lot of scientific research!

[Big Les Wade]

Janet <H...@invalid.net> posted
>In article <e1r*XV...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...

>
>> Under what other circumstances would taking someone's photo without
>> their consent constitute breach of the peace ?
>

> In many swimmingpools, sports events and schools, where photography is
>banned ? Not just in Scotland.

"Banning" something (I take it you mean prohibited by the owners of the
premises) doesn't automatically make it a breach of the peace to do it.

> The person admitted "a sexual element involved".
>My guess is there was pornographic digital manipulation of the photos
>taken.

How would anybody have known about it? If no-one did then it couldn't
have caused a breach of the peace.

--
Les

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:z4fwefOBhV+QFw$i...@obviously.invalid...

One person could have seen the camera and reported it to the police.
When they went round, the full scale became apparent..?


--
Alex

[Roland Perry]

In message <jjmif8lhohslv3d4t...@4ax.com>, at 14:30:03 on
Fri, 18 Jan 2013, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:

>>> Under what other circumstances would taking someone's photo without
>>> their consent constitute breach of the peace ?
>>

>> In many swimmingpools, sports events and schools, where photography is
>> banned ? Not just in Scotland.
>

>Those are all on private property where the occupier has the right to impose
>restrictions on visitors. Photography in a public place is quite different.

Presumably that also covers photography from a private place (a person's
home) when the subject is in a public place (the street)?
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <87mww6y...@news2.kororaa.com>,
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>It's not the first time photography has led to a breach of the peace:
>
>http://news.stv.tv/tayside/113546-foreign-student-in-court-for-photographing-schoolchildren-in-street/

OMG WTF BBQ

[Fredxx]

On 18/01/2013 15:25, August West wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>
>> "Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:z4fwefOBhV+QFw$i...@obviously.invalid...
>>
>>> Janet <H...@invalid.net> posted
>>>

>>> How would anybody have known about it? If no-one did then it
>>> couldn't have caused a breach of the peace.
>>
>> One person could have seen the camera and reported it to the police.
>> When they went round, the full scale became apparent..?
>

> No. I don't think that would not have been breach of the peace, unless
> the first person complained of, and was willing to testify to, their
> alarm. The police's observation alone would not be sufficient. (And
> Scots law does not allow for police, generally, to be suitably alarmed;
> for example, Miller v PF Glasgow 2008 HCJAC 4.)
>

Scots law doesn't require an actual breach of the peace to occur, merely
the perception that one could occur. Taken from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/naked-rambler-prison

In Scotland, breach of the peace is partly defined as "conduct which
does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in a state of
fear, alarm or annoyance".

[Roland Perry]

In message <kdc2ob$67l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:01 on Fri, 18 Jan
2013, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:

>In Scotland, breach of the peace is partly defined as "conduct which
>does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in a state of
>fear, alarm or annoyance".

So every spammer and troll living in Scotland is guilty (under the
"annoyance" criterion alone).
--
Roland Perry

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:

>>In Scotland, breach of the peace is partly defined as "conduct
>>which does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in
>>a state of fear, alarm or annoyance".
>
> So every spammer and troll living in Scotland is guilty (under
> the "annoyance" criterion alone).

Not to mention Parliament.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Roland Perry]

In message <8738xxd...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 17:55:02 on Sat, 19
Jan 2013, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:

>>> In Scotland, breach of the peace is partly defined as "conduct which
>>> does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in a state of
>>> fear, alarm or annoyance".
>>
>> So every spammer and troll living in Scotland is guilty (under the
>> "annoyance" criterion alone).
>

>No.

Why.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:20:17 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Because that's only part of the definition.

To be more precise, that's the definition of what is potentially a breach
of the peace. If it doesn't, or can't, cause fear, alarm or annoyance then
it can't be a breach of the peace at all.

If it passes that test, then it also has to pass another test, which is
that it must "threaten serious disturbance to the community". Only if it
passes that test can it result in a successful prosecution.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Roland Perry]

In message <87ehhhc...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 19:40:01 on Sat, 19

Jan 2013, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
>>>>> In Scotland, breach of the peace is partly defined as "conduct which
>>>>> does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in a state of
>>>>> fear, alarm or annoyance".
>>>>
>>>> So every spammer and troll living in Scotland is guilty (under the
>>>> "annoyance" criterion alone).
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Why.
>

>Because (a) "annoyance" means more than suggested in your in your
>example, and

Is there a definition of "annoyance"? Some people (in another newsgroup)
are currently very annoyed with me because I'm trying to defend Windows
against Unix.

>(b) that's an old definition of Breach of The Peace.

So duff gen from the original poster.
--
Roland Perry