The submission concentrated on the importance of journalists not being prevented from doing their work, arrested or taken into custody, or of journalistic property or material not being confiscated save in exceptional circumstances.

The NUJ made the strong case that if in ‘wholly exceptional circumstances’ the police need to intervene, then it should be by use of Street Bail as opposed to taking a journalist to the police station.

NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff submitted that: “There are examples of NUJ members who have been arrested and had material and property such as camera equipment seized in circumstances where it would be difficult to argue that it was necessary and proportionate, and has had the added consequence of interfering with the ability to work and earn a living.”

Addressing the other key concern of search and seizure of material, the union pointed out that since the police now have additional powers to seize material under the Terrorism Act, it is essential that safeguards in PACE remain and that ‘this must not be a fishing expedition’; that material should only be seized following the Police applying for and being granted an Order by a Circuit Judge and, beyond meeting the statutory conditions laid down, that a judge must be satisfied that it is in the public interest.

Roy Mincoff pointed out the importance of maintaining journalists’ credibility as impartial observers, stressing: “It should not be forgotten that the press role of ‘public watchdog’ would be substantially diminished if unpublished photographs, film or material is routinely seized.”

The union says that the Guidelines negotiated by the NUJ with the Association of Chief Police Officers (and now approved by ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities)should be incorporated into the Act.

Finally, the union expressed concern that the proposed PACE Review Board does not include any representative of the media and called for this omission to be addressed.