Val Swain and Emily Apple, campaigners against surveillance of police forward intelligence teams, were held in custody for four days after challenging police officer over failure to display badge number

This article is more than 11 years old

This article is more than 11 years old

"Have you seen the Blues Brothers over there?" the police surveillance officer said. "Look – filming everybody else."

It was supposed to have been a routine day of protest for Val Swain and Emily Apple, but at 1.31pm on 8 August last year, moments after being spotted by the surveillance unit, they found this was to be no ordinary demonstration.

After challenging a police officer over his failure to display a badge number at a protest against the Kingsnorth power station in Kent, the two women were wrestled to the ground, handcuffed and placed in a police van. They were held in custody for four days, three of which were spent in HMP Bronzefield.

Swain, 43, was arrested for assault and obstruction and Apple,33, for obstruction. The charges were later dropped.

The arrests were caught on police surveillance footage obtained by the Guardian and will be submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Commission tomorrow in a complaint lodged by the solicitors firm Tuckers.

Swain, from Cardiff, and Apple, from Cornwall, believe they were unlawfully arrested and detained because they campaign for Fit Watch, a protest group opposed to police forward intelligence teams (Fits), the surveillance units that regularly monitor political activists and demonstrations and meetings.

Fit Watch seeks to "turn the tables" on police with a form guerrilla surveillance: activists film and photograph officers on duty surveillance and upload their details on to a blog.

They also attempt to impede police surveillance by placing banners and placards in front of cameras.

Senior officers argue that Fit units, pioneered by the Metropolitan police, are an essential tool for public order policing and help identify troublemakers at protests.

However, Fit techniques – criticised in a recent court of appeal ruling – infuriate protesters, who argue that they are used to harass and intimidate campaigners. Swain and Apple believe their attempts to monitor police meant they were unfairly targeted.

Between them, they say, they have been arrested for various offences at 11 protests since 2007, although they have always been acquitted or seen the charges against them dropped.

The pair were immediately spotted by police surveillance officers when they arrived at the Kingsnorth demonstration. Narrating the surveillance video, the officers called them the "Blue Brothers" in an apparent reference to their outfits.

"Got the Fit Watch people now coming out of the camp," the officer added as he moved the camera closer. "All dressed in black hoodies. Dark glasses."

His footage reveals that at least four of the officers – part of a team drafted in from West Yorkshire – were not displaying their badge numbers. It also recorded Apple asking one of the officer to reveal his badge number. The officer refused.

"Well you do actually have to tell me," Apple said. "If someone requests your number – if a member of the public requests your number – you do have to give your number."

She asked Swain to photograph the officer. "I'd like a picture of this officer so I can make a complaint," she said. "It's West Yorkshire police – no number."

As Swain lifted her camera, a second officer, who was not displaying his badge number, stood in her way and informed the women they would be searched. They offered no resistance but were wrestled to the ground seconds later.

A third Fit Watch campaigner, Geoff Cornock, a 52-year-old from Cardiff who was standing nearby, was also pushed to the floor and arrested for obstruction. He was released on bail the following day.

Cornock's charges were also dropped, and he is joining the women in their complaint to the IPCC.

Both Swain and Apple were pinned to the ground in restraint positions for around 15 minutes. Apple had her head pushed into the ground by an officer without a badge number. Moments later, the same officer placed one hand around her neck in a stranglehold position, apparently attempting to show her face to the police camera.

He then pressed his fingers on pressure points in her neck to move her across the road.

Several metres away, Swain was also being pinned to the ground. The footage captured her groaning in pain and telling an officer to stop standing on her foot. The camera panned down to show the officer's boot clamped on top of Swain's foot. The officer said: "I am not on your foot."

Told in passing that she was being arrested, Swain replied: "For what: taking a photograph?"

Later, the footage captured Swain complaining about her treatment. "You have no right to grab someone from inside the climate camp, drag them out here, and tell them that you are arresting them for obstruction," she said.

She was turned on her side while officers removed her shoes. Her legs were bound with black leg restraints before several officers carried her into back of a police van.

Apple claimed that, after the pair had been taken to a police station, officers refused her permission speak to a solicitor.

The following morning, Apple and Swain were remanded in custody to Bronzefield women's prison.

They allege police told magistrates that they feared the pair would cause "physical or mental injury" to officers if they were allowed out on bail.

"I am quite shocked that someone can end up in prison for simply taking a photograph," Swain said. "I have a home life. My children were expecting me home, my partner was expecting me home. My boss was expecting me to turn up to work. None of those things happened."

She said her incarceration contributed to her losing her job as a community development officer.

Apple, whose son was four when she was held, added: "It has got to the stage where every protest is so repressively policed that it's become impossible to have a voice on the streets."

The Kent police assistant chief constable, Andy Adams, said yesterday: "We recognise that people have made complaints, and we are dealing with these in accordance with our normal procedures.

"There is a judicial review under way and, during that process, Kent police is unable to comment on individual cases."