A row has broken out over a photograph of Gloucestershire’s police and crime commissioner Martin Surl and DIY SOS star Nick Knowles.
The pair were pictured while talking on the balcony, at the top of the steps leading to and from the main entrance to Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court yesterday.
It followed Knowles having been banned from driving for six months and being fined £1,483. The punishment was handed out by magistrates after the 56-year-old celebrity admitted holding his mobile phone while driving at 85mph on the Brockworth Bypass on January 28 this year.
Mr Surl attended court to thank Knowles for not contesting the charges. He spoke to him in the courtroom and then outside on the balcony.
It was then that a member of his staff took the photograph and it was issued to the media by his office.
Today, Gloucester councillor Jeremy Hilton issued a press release saying that Mr Surl had broken the law, albeit inadvertently.
He referred to Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which prohibits photographs being taken in the court or its precincts and prohibits them being published.
A spokesman for Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court confirmed that the steps are considered to be part of the precincts of the court and photographs should not be taken by anyone within them.
What Mr Hilton said
Mr Hilton, the leader of Gloucester Liberal Democrats who represents Kingsholm and Wotton on the city council and county council, said: “I saw Mr Surl had posted the picture of him with Mr Knowles on Twitter and also wrote a blog post about the case.
“It struck me that the balcony immediately outside Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court is part of the building, which means it is classed as the court precinct.
“It is against the law to take photos either inside a courtroom or in its precincts.
“You would hope that as a former police superintendent and now the county’s police and crime commissioner, Mr Surl would know the law.
“The penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding £1,000.
“I would think it is highly unlikely that Mr Surl would be prosecuted but it is embarrassing. He really should know better.”
Mr Hilton added: “I would hope this acts a reminder to ordinary members of the public of what could happen if you take photographs within the precincts of a court building.”
What Mr Surl said
Mr Surl said: “Permission was given by on-duty security for photography while we were speaking outside the court building itself.
“However, a photo opportunity was not the intention of my visit. I went to court to show my appreciation to Mr Knowles for being honest and so public spirited.
"I want more motorists to accept their responsibility to other road users as he did. That's the message I want to get out."
What the law says
The Criminal Justice Act 1925 says:
(1) No person shall —
a) take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or
b) publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;
and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(2) For the purposes of this section —
a) the expression “court” means any court of justice (including the court of a coroner), apart from the Supreme Court;
b) the expression “Judge” includes registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner:
(c) a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.
Top Gloucestershire news stories today
Gloucestershire Live has in the recent past fallen into the same trap as Mr Surl, having taken a small number of photographs and video footage on the balcony of the court after getting the go-ahead to do so from security staff.
