Journal reporter falsely accused of recording meeting

Journal reporter Chloe Hubbard was asked by police to leave Combe Martin Parish Council's annual meeting — falsely accused of trying to record the proceedings. Here she explains what happened:

THE use of recording devices by the press is not illegal in UK council meetings. The only places journalists are banned from using recording devices is within UK courtrooms.

Journalists may wish to inform councillors if they are recording a meeting as a matter of courtesy, but they are well within their rights to record a public meeting without permission.

So I was somewhat bemused that members of Combe Martin Parish Council deemed it appropriate to tell their clerk to ask PC Jim Kidd to remove me from their annual parish meeting, under suspicion of "illegally" using a recording device.

Just to add to the confusion, I was not using a recording device of any kind — I find it much more efficient to keep a shorthand note.

When PC Kidd removed me from the meeting, with no explanation as to why I was being asked to step outside, I refused, saying I would rather speak after the meeting.

He pointedly told me, in front of councillors and members of the public, that I had to leave right away.

When we got outside the door, he told me the parish clerk had informed him one of her councillors thought I was illegally recording the meeting.

It was clear the officer had been coerced into the confrontation, and was quite embarrassed when I asked why on earth I would bother to record a parish council meeting?

He apologised and let me re-enter the meeting — but as I got back into the hall, I could see the parish clerk standing over my belongings.

I asked the clerk if she would like to search my bag. She declined and asked me to further discuss the matter outside.

I found myself in the freezing foyer of the building, being lectured about the popular comment facility on our website, which had upset the council.

I was also told that in light of recent events, I should understand why the council is naturally suspicious. I was also informed that the council had "had trouble in the past" from the paper, and that the clerk had a migraine.

In my view none of this explained why the council had deemed it appropriate to use the police to forcibly remove the press from the meeting.

Once eventually back inside the meeting, some 20 minutes later, the chairman offered the Journal an unreserved apology from the council.