There has been some discussion on Linkedin about the actual law as to taking photographs.
It is well known that using a camera in Court can amount to a criminal offence (the most recent case being Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson), Re [2018] EWCA Crim 1856 – regarding his contempt appeal, but it refers to his original potential breach of s41 act), but there seems to be mixed view on what the actual interpretation of the Act is and whether one has to merely take a photograph to be guilty of the offence or whether it must capture a person (Judge, juror, witness or party to a proceedings).
I became caught in a dispute on linkedin with a trainee Solicitor who, as far as he was concerned, was an open and shut interpretation. I had said that many dispute that. It is not the clearest of statutory offences.
s41 Criminal Justice Act 1925
Section 41 of Criminal Justice Act 1925 is as follows:-
41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c., in court.
(1)No person shall—
(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or
b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;
and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
[F1(1A)See section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 for power to provide for exceptions.]
[F2(a)the expression “court” means any court of justice (including the court of a coroner), apart from the Supreme Court;]
(b)the expression “Judge” includes . . . F3, registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner:
(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.
My reading of the subsection 1 is that you cannot take (or attempt to take) in an Court, a photograph (or a sketch/portrait with the view to publish) of any person (whether that be a Judge, juror, witness or party to the proceedings, irrespective of whether it was criminal or civil proceedings).
This could mean that if I were to take a photograph of a handwritten Court Order or document brought to Court by another party, providing that photograph showed no individuals, there would be no offence.
Others have read the interpretation to mean that no photographs whatsoever should be taken in Court and to do so risks committing the offence.
The statutory interpretation
I would say that I have taken the literal approach, without any sort of inference as to what parliament may have intended. If we were to look at the alternative consideration (being that photographs in Court were an offence irrespective of what the photograph captures) then it would mean that a sketch or portrait could be of anything within Court, unless it was of a person. That to me seems absurd.
If we were to consider the golden rule approach, I think this would intend for the latter interpretation to be disregarded for the above reason. It would make more sense that the purpose was to protect individuals who may fall within a select category.
I don’t think there is a gap in the statutory interpretation to require the mischief rule and given that the act was almost 100 year ago, would have had a different intention when cameras were not available in each person’s pocket in the form of a mobile telephone (I expect that was not something that was envisaged by parliament.
Better to be safe then sorry
I would simply say that it really doesn’t matter what the interpretation is. Just do not take any photographs. That way there is no need to consider whether or not the statute is interpreted correctly?
Of course, like many people, I use the notes app on my phone to scan a document which produces a PDF that I can email to myself. Does that amount to taking a photograph? Is it a photographs if the app captures the content of document and replicates it as a PDF? Is it just replicating the text? I’ve noticed that if you have finger in the shot or something like a table it can pick these up. Is this any different from a photograph.
It might be that the nature of the PDF app scanning does not amount to taking a photograph. However it is just another risk that one may want to avoid as a precaution.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.