South Yorkshire Police Withdraw Demand for Photojournalist’s Riot Images

Joel Goodman, a freelance photojournalist, expressed “extreme relief” following the withdrawal of what he described as a “flawed and dangerous” demand from South Yorkshire Police. The police force had previously contemplated compelling Mr. Goodman to provide photographs he captured of unrest outside an asylum hotel in Rotherham, potentially through a court order. Mr. Goodman had declined the request, citing the importance of upholding media freedom, and stated that complying with the force’s demand would have subjected him and other journalists to “increased danger at work.” A spokesperson for the police indicated that their ongoing investigation into the riot “no longer necessitates” seeking the images from the journalist, who resides in north-west England. The police force had sought the photographs to identify individuals within a crowd that gained unauthorized entry to a Holiday Inn during a period of widespread unrest that affected various towns and cities throughout the UK in the summer. Under criminal evidence laws, journalists can be legally compelled to disclose material in certain situations, which involves police requesting a production order from a judge. “I am extremely relieved to learn that this is over,” Mr. Goodman stated. He further explained that police had maintained their demand for over three months, despite his objections that it would impede journalists’ capacity to operate without constraint. Ultimately, he noted, the force conceded that “they did not have grounds under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to pursue any court order against me.” A spokeswoman for South Yorkshire Police affirmed that the force “remains of the view that the process remains a lawful option,” even though they withdrew the specific demand. She also mentioned that some individuals depicted in published photographs of the riot have either been convicted or are currently undergoing legal proceedings. Furthermore, officers determined that additional images of masked individuals were “highly unlikely” to assist in identifying them. Mr. Goodman reported that the police declined to cover his legal expenses, which he asserted would not have arisen “had it not been for their threats.” The photojournalist indicated that he would have been unable to stop the police from pursuing legal action without the assistance of the not-for-profit organization, the Good Law Project. He commented, “Defending this principle should not have been about my ability to pay my lawyers.” He added, “It is essential that the UK does not slide towards a place in which police can use their institutional and financial power to bully and force us to serve as unmarked evidence gatherers.” Augustina Olivieri, representing the Good Law Project, stated that the organization was proud to have supported Mr. Goodman, “who stood up for all journalists” through his steadfast refusal to yield.