Christian Peregin, Mark Micallef
Picture lands photographer in trouble with the police
A photographer was taken to a police station for questioning after taking a picture of former Siggiewi mayor Robert Musumeci talking to a Malta Environment and Planning Authority board member in a car park.
Graham Cooper, a British national who is a former press photographer, attended a Mepa board hearing to object to the demolition of a building next to his Floriana home.
According to Mr Graham and other witnesses, Mr Musumeci, an architect, entered the room to speak to the developers' architects while the permit application was being discussed.
After the meeting, he was then seen talking to Claude Borg, one of the board members deciding on the application, in the authority's car park. Mr Cooper said he instinctively took a photo of the two men with the camera that he always carries with him.
Although the photo only shows the two men standing in the car park facing the camera, the police turned up at Mr Cooper's home the following day to follow up a complaint. He said he was asked to bring his camera with him and was driven to the police station in Valletta to be interviewed.
The complaint had been filed by Mr Musumeci, who felt he was harassed by the fact that Mr Cooper was taking pictures of him and the board member.
When contacted, Mr Musumeci said he felt his privacy was being invaded because a stranger was taking photos of him for no reason.
"He was in my face, invading my territory. I just asked the police to look into it and see why he was taking these photos. Basically I asked for protection from the State - this had nothing to do with data protection."
He said that he was doing nothing secretive or unethical and challenged Mr Cooper to prove otherwise.
Mr Musumeci added that if the photographer had been a member of the press, he would have had no problem with the photo. But since he did not know who he was, he feared that he might have had malicious intent and therefore asked for the issue to be investigated.
Yet the police did not bring up harassment issues when explaining why they had taken Mr Cooper to the station. Instead, the inspector interviewing him brought up the Data Protection Act.
Mr Cooper was asked for the picture but it had already been downloaded onto a computer, so the inspector asked that the picture be deleted after it would have been sent to him via e-mail.
Mr Cooper insisted that he was in a public place and had broken no laws and sent the picture as requested after he was released, but did not delete it.
The police were asked to explain why they had picked up Mr Cooper, but no response was forthcoming by the time this paper went to print.
Lawyers who spoke to The Sunday Times about the case agreed that Mr Cooper should not have been asked to delete the picture.
They said that since the two were in a public place, and since the photo was not incriminating, the police should never have got involved.
One of the lawyers said: "It cannot be a crime for someone to take a photo in a public place. That means that every time you take a photo of a landscape or a building, you might be committing a crime because there might be someone who doesn't want to be photographed. It's absurd."
The Data Protection Act does not make specific mention of photographs. Personal data are defined as "information relating to an identifiable person", and sensitive personal data as "personal data that reveals race or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, membership of a trade union, health or sex life." When contacted, the new Data Protection Commissioner, Joseph Ebejer, said he would not comment on individual cases.
38 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
J Martinelli
Jan 13th 2009, 20:50
S V Dimech et al
Where did I justify the police action?
I merely said that the police did NOT act on its own initiative but rather after receiving a complaint from Mr.Musumeci.
Did I side with the complainant?
Where is the government involvement in all this? Do you want to politicize this too? If we get to that point, I have many examples of KGB-style police involvement of yesteryear but I shall stop here.
It is unbelievable how short some memories are!
S V Dimech
Jan 13th 2009, 19:02
@ Mr Martinelli and Mr DeMartino
Seems that according to you to nothing can go wrong in this country. Through all you your comments there is not even one which might in some way put as grey shade on the government (even though in this case the gov. has nothing to do).
Do you think that such attitude make you 1% credible??
Grow up
carmel Aquilina
Jan 13th 2009, 18:24
Who make the report to the Police? Was there any sort of pressure on the police to act this from anybody else more powerfull?
Robert Callus
Jan 13th 2009, 17:00
@Michael Darmanin
I agree with you but I don't blame the police. Every complaint no matter how ridiculous should be taken seriously cause there is that small possibility it's true.
However yes, after finding absolutely nothing that could incriminate or even make a suspect the photographer, the person making the complaint should have been fine for wasting the time of the police, as well as that of the photographer himself
Andrew Zammit Manduca
Jan 13th 2009, 16:51
Why the drama Mr. Musumeci?
Klaus M. Pedersen
Jan 13th 2009, 13:46
To misquote Shakespeare: The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
Michael Darmnin
Jan 13th 2009, 13:30
The only way to stop this nonsense is to charge people, who waste the police's time and money, a fine. This is clearly such a case. Using the police, who are paid by tax payers, as your own personal "gorillas" to intimidate someone is a sign that malta is still bogged down by the recent past.
the police should really check whether each intervention is covered by law before barging in. It would help to improve their image.
Denis Catania
Jan 12th 2009, 18:47
If you don't want your picture taken in public by the public. Don't run for public office and or work for the public. Case closed.
Florence Grech
Jan 12th 2009, 17:09
Poor Mr Musumeci!! Even my fifteen year old daughter read this and laughed immediately. She said and I quote; " He really has the paparazzi chasing after him! "
Denis Catania
Jan 12th 2009, 17:04
@officials: My name was spelled incorrectly the right spelling is Denis Catania from Gzira migrated LEGALLY to the U.S Nov 17th 1971. I don't want to government think I fear them and is trying to hide my real identity.
Denis Catatania
Jan 12th 2009, 15:59
Hiding court Transcripts, Police Questioning people with camaras. Should I hire a lawyer before I come to Malta?? Will I become a political prisoner?? Bring it on Malta. Bring it on!!!!
V Fenech
Jan 12th 2009, 15:52
It would be better for Mr Musumeci to spend his time trying to restore his party rather than fighting photographers!
Ronald Cauchi
Jan 12th 2009, 14:05
Another example of the arrogance of petty public figures who think they can push people about and the sycophantic behaviour of the police who seem to be there to protect them and not the ordinary citizen.
Odette Longo
Jan 12th 2009, 11:34
How Banal.
A waste of police time.
Pauline Camilleri
Jan 12th 2009, 11:22
@Jonathan Borg
Couldn't agree more. Police state, indeed. In most real democracies, public officials are held, and hold themselves, to a higher standard - namely to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Now, it would be naive to think that people who do business together are not, or do not become, friends - that is fine. However, for a public official to demand that the police retrieve a photo and to think that the police actually do it, rather than thinking through the ramifications of their actions, that is the scary part. Dark days ahead, indeed.
Tanja Cilia
Jan 12th 2009, 10:31
The photograph should be deleted.... but only after all television stations get rid of stock clips with people walking along Republic Street, Sliema Front, Bugibba Promenade, Marsaxlokk Quay, etc etc.
Carmelo Aquilina
Jan 12th 2009, 10:13
Mr Musumeci, a public figure who holds public office was in a public place (not his territory !) and has no right to claim his privacy was being violated. then you have no privacy and people have the right to take your picture without giving reasons . The police should have investigated the complaint but not asked people to delete it. Mr Musumeci doth too much !
Joe Cassar
Jan 12th 2009, 09:33
Mr J Martinelli's penchant for trying to explain awa y anything that could be even remotely be considered as a failing of the PN Gov would be amusing were it not also tragic.
This was a case where the police acted illegally and ultra-vires. Was it an individual failing? Is it the policy of the force? Is it Gov policy?
We don't know - but we should find out and nip this attitude in the bud, before it leads to worse things.
Oak trees from little acorns grow.
B Azzopardi
Jan 12th 2009, 09:01
Mr Mizzi,I would put the sort of mentality you comment about further than that.Do you not remember the Police taking orders from a foreigner and charging against their own nationals when Malta was still a colony and fighting for a better standard of living and no less than freedom?. Some of us have very long memories.
L Agius
Jan 12th 2009, 08:42
@ Mr Martinelli,
In answer to your questions
1. Yes.
2.Because that would have been harassment at the very least and they knew it.
I'm surprised you didn't.
Joe Galea
Jan 12th 2009, 08:36
If Musumeci had nothing to hide, why he made such fuss on being phtographed?
Just a question which comes into everyone's mind, doesn't it?
A Spiteri
Jan 12th 2009, 08:21
Mr Martinelli... The police should not have got themselves involved. There is no law that says you cannot take a photograph,especially in public. They have even less right to delete or ask for a photo to be deleted. The World and especially Malta has changed and the kind of censorship you seem to be so fond of ,is not only discredited, but also no longer possible. And so it should be.
P Aquilina
Jan 12th 2009, 07:53
Don't go out then Mr Musumeci if photos offend you so much, and don't even think of travel. In London I guarantee you would be 'photographed' at least ,on average,300 times every time you venture out.
Don't notice such sensitivity when you are campaigning by the way.
Smile please!
M Abela
Jan 12th 2009, 07:28
So only journalists can take photos of Mr .Musumeci.?. I would have thought that speaking to a board member is at the very least unethical or perhaps unwise.
Journalists please note,do your job and take up the challenge, on a 24/7 basis if necessary. Mr Musumeci won't mind
Denis Catania
Jan 12th 2009, 07:15
WOW thisis scary for the Maltese people. You can't photograph public officials. What are they hiding. This is scary. Old Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea and now MALTA.
Giov DeMartino
Jan 12th 2009, 07:13
A student was once sued for libel because he was accused of insulting the president of the republic by the way he looke at him!!!!!!!!Are the police going back to those dark days?
Muscat. Pat
Jan 11th 2009, 21:23
This episode simply means that we have a non-political police department.
J Martinelli
Jan 11th 2009, 19:23
1. The police did not act on its own initiative. It was investigating after receiving a complaint.
The police had only one alternative - ignore the complaint !?
2. A better heading should have been, "Picture earns photographer an interview with police"
The police had no right to ask for the picture to be deleted, but think about it - had that been their true intention, why did they not lift the hard drive from his computer along with camera/memory chip?
Another tempest in a teacup.
John Michael Mizzi
Jan 11th 2009, 16:13
This is my Court Protest against the Gozo Police for deleting photos from my camera without my permission:
http://www.gozitans.eu/docos/Protest-John-Michael-Mizzi.pdf
This is thier denial:
http://www.gozitans.eu/docos/Kontro-Protest-Against-John-Michael-Mizzi.pdf
You judge for yourself who is telling the truth!
It shows you that the police force still has 1980s mentallity. At least this time they did not deny that they deleted the photos as if we are in a dictatorship.
It will be good to see irresponsible senior officers resign especially if these highly irresponsible actions from the police keep repeating themselves!
Jonathan Borg
Jan 11th 2009, 15:06
"A photographer was taken to a police station for questioning after taking a picture... the police turned up at Mr Cooper's home the following day to follow up a complaint. He said he was asked to bring his camera with him and was driven to the police station in Valletta to be interviewed." Oh my God! Here is an individual being harassed for taking a photograph of two officials in a public place. Can you say, "Police State?" Unbelievable. Maybe not. I guess that's what happens after 20 years.
Sergio Galea Vincenti
Jan 11th 2009, 14:33
I am pretty perplexed and worried by this part of the article:
"According to Mr Graham and other witnesses, Mr Musumeci, an architect, entered the room to speak to the developers' architects while the permit application was being discussed.
"After the meeting, he was then seen talking to Claude Borg, one of the board members deciding on the application, in the authority's car park. Mr Cooper said he instinctively took a photo of the two men with the camera that he always carries with him."
Did the Police, MEPA or indeed the PM (who is responsible for MEPA) investigate this element rather than the taking of the photo by Mr. Cooper?
I am also somewhat worried by Mr. Musumeci's statement where, as reported, "He said that he was doing nothing secretive or unethical and challenged Mr Cooper to prove otherwise."
I believe that tactfulness - at the very least - would have been more apt rather than this sort of statement and maybe, just maybe, a little clarification of what was going on could have better served the situation.
Without reading anything into this case, following the mess related with the Mistra case, prudence may dictate different approaches by professionals.
Andrea Fenech
Jan 11th 2009, 14:30
Re: J. Dimech
It is not a question of being a political figure or not, if one is in a public place one is entitled to be photographed. The only argument that may be brought up is that of harassment, however harassment is not caused by the simple act of taking a photograph and neither can the Data Protection Act be used in this way.
It is unfortunate not only that certain police officers try to act in this cowboy-like manner without having a proper knowledge of the law but also that the Data Protection Commissioner fails to point this out, as it is not the first time that such incidents have occurred. It should not be the lawyers to have to clarify this point but the Commissioner himself.
George Swindells
Jan 11th 2009, 13:51
There are two things that are at issue in this case. One is what was Robert Musumeci doing at the time. Was it in some way connected to the case that Graham Cooper was involved in, or was it a totally innocuous matter not related to the case of Graham Cooper? . The second issue has far greater implications. Why did the police act in the way they did? On on the say so of a public figure? Are we headed towards a police state where public figures can finger innocent members of the pubic and have them dragged down to the police station? The issue of photography being part of the Data Protection act has been well tested and found not to be covered by the act, as reported in the article. So why did the police not know the law and why take the man to a police station when there was no case to answer?
J Azzopardi
Jan 11th 2009, 13:30
It us sad that the Police official does not know the law well enough and exceeded his authority to ask for the deletion of the photo and the DPC does not want to get involved.
James Dimech
Jan 11th 2009, 12:19
Since Musumeci is a public political figure we have a right to see how he goes around carrying out business and whom he talks to, even though all he wants us to see are his made up photos accompanying his press releases and fliers during a campaign.
Franco Farrugia
Jan 11th 2009, 11:58
@ Anthony Formosa - That's a different matter altogether. Hunters are breaking the law. And it is hunters who are harrassing, not the CABS.
Anthony Formosa
Jan 11th 2009, 11:25
Very well indeed, I hope everyone will act the same when these CABS are harassing hunters in their private property.
Joseph Camilleri
Jan 11th 2009, 11:05
The DP Commissioner will not comment on individual cases?
Since the DP Commissioner has a legal obligation to order the rectification of a situation where data has been processed unlawfully, one can only conclude that there has been no breach of the DP Act. Otherwise one would have expected the DP Commissioner to at least inform the Sunday Times that he would be investigating the matter.