Is 'Auditing' Legal in Britain? | BlackBeltBarrister

My views on whether "Auditing" is legal in Britain. This is a brief explainer video of your rights when taking photographs or filming something (or someone) in public. There is no specific law that prevents you from taking photographs or filming a video in public but there are certain things that you might wish to consider before while doing so.

There are various laws that may cause difficulties depending on the situation but you have the right to keep any photographs and video you take or film in public and you are the copyright owner of all such material. No one has the right to force you to delete photographs or videos that you have taken in public but in certain situations, the police may be able to search, view, or even seize photographs or videos that you have taken in public. Also consider the Police powers to search under s43 Terrorism Act 2002.

As always, this video is NOT formal legal advice - you must always seek full advice and do not rely on this video or any other video or anything else you read online.

Also me: @blackbeltsecrets

[for the avoidance of doubt, I don't consider Charlie to be an "Auditor" in the common understanding, rather, a citizen journalist.]

NPCC Guidance document:

Court of Appeal case:
WELLER AND ORS v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED [2015] EWCA Civ 1176

Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice!

💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!

MY CAMERA GEAR
(Affiliate link)

LAW FAQS

CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:

TREE LAW PLAYLIST:

ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:

FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister

Description contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.

[CharlesVeitch]

Brilliant video Daniel. Thank you for using me as a positive example. Good clarity

[PINACI]

The older ACPO photography guidance memo published in 2010 is also still valid and confirmed to me as such from the NPCC.

[warrenpeace]

Hi BB Barister, as a follow on from this, would it be possible for you to have a look through some "Auditing" videos and point out where you think there may be breaches of section 26 by police officers? That would be VERY interesting.

[TheSadButMadLad]

2:28 There are three types of privacy. Absolute, reasonable, and none. Absolute applies to private homes or private activities such as being in a public convenience. Reasonable means being in public but doing something which others should not pry on such as a private conversation on a park bench or typing in a PIN on an ATM. None is anywhere else, be it in public places or even private places which is visible to the public.

[CSMDarren]

Hi Daniel, I've noticed on various auditors video's that when rightfully refusing to give their details when being demanded by the police, they are then forced to do so by being hit with a section 50, antisocial behaviour, where it is a separate offence not to give your details. This is clearly an abuse of the act. Your thoughts please Daniel. Many thanks as always, Darren.

[nickbarber]

Very helpful and interesting content.
Could you perhaps make a video discussing the notion of a "Public Place" one day?

[mikeboden]

I echo the call for you to comment on the behaviour of the police in some of these type of content blogs, One of the reasons filming of the police in public interactions has become so prevalent has been some quite shocking abuse of powers and misuse of the laws of this country in my opinion.

[TheSadButMadLad]

3:10 Auditing is generally testing how those with a perceived sense of authority treat those who they perceive to be lower than themselves. It is not just about how they react to being filmed. The camera is just a recording device. It's how the auditor is treated as a person that is what auditing is all about. For example security personnel will have authority to control what people do within their boundary, but they will also perceive that that authority extends outside of it and this is where auditors will see if security misuse their authority. They will also test that security don't exceed their authority or their responsibilities.

[MrAdyian]

I misread the title as “ is auditing Britain legal” and thought wow this channel has changed direction 😂

[ernestbywater]

I found this video rather interesting as it implies a very major change in the laws from a couple of decades ago when I did some work as a semi-professional photographer. At that time a law course lecture I attended made clear the very interesting aspects listed below:

1. It's legal to take photographs or images in: (a) any public place, or (b) any private place where you have the prior permission of the owner or tenant in control of the premises, or (c) any semi-public place such as a shopping centre, or (d) any Crown land or property that is NOT designated and signs posted as being restricted from photographs or imaging such as a Defence Establishment.

2. It's NOT legal to take photographs or film of the inside of private property from a public place unless you have the prior permission of the owner or the tenant in control of the property.

3. It's NOT legal to take photographs or film inside of a semi-public place such as a shopping centre if they have signs posted prohibiting such activity or an authorised person in control of the semi-public place instructs you to cease taking photographs or film within the premises.

4. It's NOT legal to publish any image of a person that shows sufficient of that person's features to be able to identify them unless: (a) you have a signed release authority form from them, or (b) it's newsworthy event such as fire, car crash, etc. The making of a financial return on the publication is not relevant to the legality of the publication without approval.

The points (2), (3), and (4) were to comply with the relevant privacy laws.

It strikes me that while auditing would be valid and legal under point (1) the publication would likely be in violation of point (4) and possibly in violation of points (2) and (3). I'd be interested to know how the privacy laws were changed to allow the publication.


While no one can have an expectation of privacy in a public place they should not have to have an expectation of them being there being made public without a very valid reason other than 'I want to post a video.'

[sanchezgotsumkids]

I do not understand how someone's actions that are well within the law can be deemed as "provocation" in any way by the police? It seems to me that for the public, law is pretty black and white....but for the police/judicial system, there seems to be a huge grey area where they mostly choose to operate where they can easily swing decisions based on their own subjectivity and interpretation.

[Parawingdelta]

That 'hostile reconnaissance' sounds like a load of crap that could be used every time someone pulls out their Brownie 127. If I was indulging in hostile reconnaissance, I could almost guarantee nobody would know I was doing it. I'd have newspaper in front of my face with a hole in it.

[lrdisco]

I have watched several of these videos and often section 43 is deployed right away, usually when the auditor declines to give their details. Most are not willing to be arrested and capitulate. The police know if they do overstep their powers and arrest someone there will be no consequence for them.

[AngusMontrose]

Many of these 'security guards' are suspicious characters themselves, which is why they don't like being recorded.

It would be worth investigating how G4S and Serco get all their lucrative contracts.

[_Naython_]

Brilliant channel 👌
Looking forward to this one

[TheSadButMadLad]

10:06 A s43 search under the terrorism act can only be done when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person with the camera is a terrorist. And not answering questions cannot give rise to reasonable suspicion. Nor can any negative attitude, as a terrorist will most likely appear friendly and obedient if not subservient in order to ally any suspicions. Nor can the camera which is typically a smart phone which every has. Or even if the camera is a bulky professional camera. The simple fact is that the use of the camera is overt and not as the NPCC memo states, covert. A s43 search can only be carried out when there has been other information that the person is likely to be a terrorist, such as repeatedly watching the building or other intelligence from anti-terror departments in the police. A constable spotting a person with a camera and performing a s43 search based on a few questions will mean that the reasonable suspicion does not exist nor will the constable know what they are looking for.

[wittywarlord]

The main thing that concerns me is the fact that local councils are using police forces to issue public protection notices to auditors restricting their rights to film in public. Councils are elected and paid for by the public so by issuing PPO's against people who are bringing to light the level of abuse by public officials is very underhanded and shows that the councils are assisting the police to cover up their abuse of authority and legislation.
It would be good and I would be interested to see if you could elaborate on how councils and police forces can use these PPO's to redtrict our rights, and maybe do a video on our rights and how they can be removed from us using legislation. Even answer the question of do we have protected rights here in the UK?

[boywithadolphin]

I was stoped and searched for taking a photo of a street advert that had no building in the background. They even said I would be arrested if I did it again. Also stoped for taking photos of a block of flats under construction.

[Vintaronica]

Whilst I agree with the legalities of Auditing. What is the point? I don't get it, do people really have nothing else to do anymore other than watch someone wind someone else up for the sake of it? Am I the only one not getting it..help me understand

[PAAce]

These 'auditors" would be better off using their dole money to try and find a job rather than bullying hard working tax paying people at their place of work