Potter actor in terrorist shock

AboveTheSalt · 21-07-2009, 18:34

Police seized the camera of Jamie Waylett, who plays Draco Malfoy's sidekick Crabbe in the Harry Potter series after he was arrested under the Terrorism Act for taking a picture of a police patrol as he and his friend John Innis, 20, drove past.

He was arrested after police found pictures of cannabis plants on his camera and has been sentenced to 120 hours of unpaid community service by Westminster Magistrates' Court for growing 10 cannabis plants in tents at his Kilburn home. (BBC online)

Stupid, paranoid, power-crazed policemen abusing the Terrorism Act

Feek · 21-07-2009, 18:36

Once a Slytherin, always a Slytherin

Mark · 21-07-2009, 19:15

Potter actor in breaking the law shocker! I disagree with the whole photography thing of course, because it's just plain stupid. Having said that, toting a collection of photos of your private cannabis plantation is equally stupid and he got what he deserved.

Feek summed the situation up much better, however.

iCraig · 21-07-2009, 19:49

Someone's gotta grow it.

leowyatt · 21-07-2009, 20:04

120 hours is better than the 14 years he could have got

Del Lardo · 21-07-2009, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by leowyatt

120 hours is better than the 14 years he could have got

Even low level coke dealers are unlucky to see more than 2 years inside a minimum security 'hotel'

Del Lardo · 22-07-2009, 00:55

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...le-phone-court

Mark · 22-07-2009, 01:10

The Guardian has, shall we say, history on this subject, and as a result I certainly wouldn't consider them impartial. Purely on face value the officers acted other than in accordance with the law, but I'd first ask what we're not being told.

Garp · 22-07-2009, 05:30

Under the terms of the Serious Crime Act, section 110, Police officers can now arrest you without warrant for any even minor crime. That's a level of power the police haven't had for over 150 years!

Quote:

(1) A constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(b) anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;
(d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

(2) If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

(3)If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(4) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.

(5) The reasons are—
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b) correspondingly as regards the person's address;
(c) to prevent the person in question—
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d)to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

It wasn't all that long ago that section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act came in to play which prohibits you from photographing Police if they think there is a potential link to terrorist activity, but you do keep seeing any number of cases of misinterpretation by Police officers. I'm sure most aren't a problem, but it's those few that don't understand the law who are. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7888301.stm

Either way he's screwed. The Police officer under the terms of SOCA can arrest him without warrant on the basis of suspicion that his photographs were going to be used for terrorism purposes (as per section 76 of counter terrorism act), and that his arrest was necessary to allow prompt investigation of the offence.

AboveTheSalt · 22-07-2009, 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

The Guardian has, shall we say, history on this subject, and as a result I certainly wouldn't consider them impartial.

Here you go then, The Sun

Quote:

The pair were detained in April under the Terrorism Act after Waylett took a photo of a police patrol as they drove past.

and that other fellow-traveller of the Grauniad, the Daily Moron

Quote:

The tubby 19-year-old actor was arrested in April this year after police stopped him and a friend in an Audi car in London. The officers thought he'd been taking photos of them, the court heard.

21-07-2009, 18:36	#2
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Once a Slytherin, always a Slytherin __________________

21-07-2009, 19:49	#4
iCraig iCustom User Title Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,250	Someone's gotta grow it. __________________

21-07-2009, 20:04	#5
leowyatt Chef extraordinaire Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Infinite Loop Posts: 11,143	120 hours is better than the 14 years he could have got __________________ "Dr Sheldon Cooper FTW!"

21-07-2009, 19:15	#3
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Potter actor in breaking the law shocker! I disagree with the whole photography thing of course, because it's just plain stupid. Having said that, toting a collection of photos of your private cannabis plantation is equally stupid and he got what he deserved. Feek summed the situation up much better, however.

22-07-2009, 00:55	#7
Del Lardo Absinthe Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cambridge Posts: 2,539	http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...le-phone-court

22-07-2009, 01:10	#8
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	The Guardian has, shall we say, history on this subject, and as a result I certainly wouldn't consider them impartial. Purely on face value the officers acted other than in accordance with the law, but I'd first ask what we're not being told.