Rights and LimitsAfter an arrestFilming the police

Filming the police

Applies to: England & Wales. The law is materially different in Scotland and Northern Ireland — notably, Scotland has no adverse-inference rule for silence. Do not apply this page outside England and Wales.

What you must do, and what you can refuse

Every claim below links to the law it comes from, with the wording quoted so you can check it yourself.

You must

Refusing is a criminal offence.

Comply with a lawful instruction from an officer even while filming — resisting or wilfully obstructing them in the execution of their duty is a separate offence.
This is about the instruction, not the filming. Filming itself is not obstruction.
Police Act 1996, s.89(2)
“Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25

You can refuse

No penalty for saying no.

Decline to delete footage or hand over your device on request, unless an officer identifies a specific power that applies to it.
Ask which power is being used. “You can’t film me” is not, on its own, a power — and deleting or seizing footage needs one.
Green & Black Cross, Filming and Photographs at Actions (know-your-rights guide)
“The police have no power to delete any of your images or videos, and can only view it in very limited circumstances.— The police cannot legally confiscate your camera without arresting you, and for that they must have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime.”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25

Lawful to refuse — but it costs you

Not an offence, but it carries a penalty or an inference.

If your footage genuinely is information likely to be useful to someone committing or preparing an act of terrorism, collecting or recording it is itself an offence under s.58 — this is a narrow, specific threshold, not a general rule against filming police.
Terrorism Act 2000, s.58(1) and (1)(a)
“A person commits an offence if— he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
Publishing or communicating information about a named constable that meets the same terrorism-usefulness threshold is itself an offence under s.58A, separately from any filming offence.
Terrorism Act 2000, s.58A(1) and (1)(a)(iii)–(b)
“A person commits an offence who— elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been— a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism— publishes or communicates any such information.”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25

The basic position

Filming or photographing police officers carrying out their duties in a public place is not, by itself, a criminal offence in England and Wales. There is no general power for an officer to order you to stop filming, to delete what you have recorded, or to seize your phone or camera simply because you were filming them.

Any power to seize a device still has to come from somewhere specific, and it still has to be grounded in something concrete: for example, the power to seize something found on a person who has been arrested requires reasonable grounds to believe it is evidence of an offence — not merely that a recording was made.

The Terrorism Act point people get wrong in both directions

Sections 58 and 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 are widely misquoted — some people say they ban filming police altogether, others say they never apply to ordinary members of the public. Neither is accurate. Both offences are narrow and specific:

Section 58 covers collecting or recording “information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”. The Act expressly says a “record” includes a photographic or electronic one, so filming is not automatically outside its scope — but the offence only bites where the material meets that specific terrorism-usefulness threshold, not merely because a constable is in the frame.
Section 58A is even narrower: it targets eliciting, publishing or communicating information about a named category of people — including a constable — that is again “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”. Routine footage of an officer on ordinary duties, taken openly in public, does not on its own meet that description.

In short: these offences require the material to be useful to terrorism, not merely embarrassing, sensitive, or unwelcome to the officer being filmed.

What is not being said here

None of this is a licence to obstruct an officer. If an officer gives a lawful instruction unrelated to the filming itself — for example, to stand back for a genuine operational or safety reason — resisting or wilfully obstructing them in the execution of their duty is a separate, real offence, and filming does not exempt you from it. The point on this page is narrower: the act of filming, by itself, is not what makes that instruction lawful, and is not itself an offence.

Last reviewed 2026-08-25. Next review due 2027-02-25. No solicitor has reviewed this page — see [email protected] if you think something here is wrong.