Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Body Worn Camera footage

All matters involving criminal law

Body Worn Camera footage

Postby BWH » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:41 pm

Very disconcerting stance taken by the IPCC in relation to my appeal of the polices finding about tampering with the footage. There is 40 minutes footage , which the police claim is non recorded. They did record 12 minutes , one segment of 5 minutes , an one of 7 , separated by 25 minutes. There is no issue with the break as all parties accept that in this period it was calm , however there is an additional 40 minutes that wasn't recorded despite the police claiming that my behavior was so bad it necessitated my arrest. Myself and others have a different version. There was 4 officers and the least experienced ,a SC was tasked with been camera man. While I accept malfunction can happen and batteries do run out , it strikes me as exceedingly odd that the officer claims he only realized that it didn't record once he was back in the station 3 hours later. For his version to true , he failed to spot the battery was dying (he could of charged it during the 25 minute break or asked his fellow officers to take over) and/or failed to realize that the device wasn't recording. He offers no explanation for the non recording , other than guessing when asked 10 months later

The IPCC view that it is impossible for an officer to tamper in any way with what is recorded is complete nonsense , in fact it dangerous. Before I go on , by tampering I mean anything from involves willfully not disclosing the footage. What I have realized is that at the time , recording is like a smart phone , in that when you stop and start , each time an additional file is created. So in my case I accept 2 files were created that cover the 2 segments but in my view the police have provided NO PROOF whatsoever to address the question. ""How do I know the copy provided and presented as a bit for bit copy of the recorded footage is what they say it is" .

The scary thing is that I asked the IPCC for a very crude piece of evidence , a window explorer screen print of the MASTER COPY which would clearly show when it was created , which it is claimed was on the night of the incident. YET what I got back was a embedded image of when the files were created , which is completely not what was asked. This reply could of put this to bed but the fact they decided NOT to provide the date the MASTER was created and the files created is a big red flag

I would very interested in hearing peoples experience of missing footage
BWH
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby dls » Fri Dec 30, 2016 7:31 pm

The file names as recorded may solve one or two doubts.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11656
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby BWH » Fri Dec 30, 2016 7:54 pm

File names 0003 and File0004. The questions are, was there additional files generated and in general what assurance do the police give that in instances when body worn footage is contained on several files that ALL files get recorded. As I see it , the fact the coverage isn't on one stream is absolutely critical as it means the assertion that that the police can't mess with the footage is bogus. YES it might be difficult to edit a file but were is the safeguards that assure all files are downloaded?
BWH
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby dls » Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:32 pm

There should be a olicy somewhere for the use and retention of files. Get the policy, and check it.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11656
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Spankymonkey » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:45 pm

The policy you are looking for is here.

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/h ... evices.pdf

The IPCC are a fiction factory. You are right to be skeptical of every word they say, and right to be suspicious of the irregular use of BWV. Read the manual supplied and you will see exactly how easy it is to delete material. Although not so easy to interfere with the sequential structure of the filenames without resetting the device.

Incidentally the police would not be under any obligation to provide a 'windows explorer screen print' of the file structure of the BWV hard drive, as it would fall outside of both FOI and Subject Access.

Batteries don't just go flat on police BWV. They give clear advanced warnings. There is also a red flashing light visible on the device whenever it is recording. If you saw it flashing, it was recording,
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby BWH » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:40 pm

Thanks

I agree that they aren't obliged to provide that the file structure of the BWC via the FOI or subject access request. That was a suggestion for the IPCC to provide some sort of assurance to validate their assessment of the case. So it looks like I will have to take them to court in a civil case. They are already boxed in as they can't use the excuse they didn't try to record it , they accept they tried but failed to unknown mechanical failure , unrecorded failure and uninvestigated failure. They can also rule out any notion they weren't aware the evidence would be vital

Put yourself in the shoes of an officer , he knows very well that if his camera failed for whatever reason he is in a potentially difficult position. If it is a genuine reason there HAS to be procedures there to protect officers. An extreme argument would be that officers who don't record footage would automatically be assumed to have done wrong. The police federation would quite rightly object as they would say their members are only one faulty camera away from trouble. However what appears to be the case is that the police can say it is faulty and that is the end of the matter. That is also totally unacceptable. If they say the camera is faulty and failed to record that doesn't necessarily mean wrongdoing but there MUST be some sort of evidence to support this. If I was that officer I would be filling forms in , sending the device for repair , I certainly wouldn't just carry as if nothing happened. For the police I would realize the optics are poor and provide the necessary evidence
BWH
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby dls » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:59 pm

However what appears to be the case is that the police can say it is faulty and that is the end of the matter. That is also totally unacceptable. If they say the camera is faulty and failed to record that doesn't necessarily mean wrongdoing but there MUST be some sort of evidence to support this.


Sorry, big assumptions.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11656
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby BWH » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:21 pm

Which assumptions are you referring too? If it is whether there should be some evidence to prove a faulty, then that would interesting. In this case we are been asked to believe the officer was unaware the device was malfunctioning which is immediately very odd as he must of seen the red light wasn't flashing. At the very least you would expect the malfunction to be recorded and investigated and that device removed from service.

If at after the investigation nothing is discovered then perhaps it is a big assumption. However ask yourself , how likely is after an investigation they wouldn't have some idea what caused the malfunction? not very likely. Surely if the device was brought back to service and failed again without investigation that would be criminal negligence. If a plane crashes due to a part failure , and the airline had visibility of this defect , the airline would be liable , so why would the police be allowed to not investigate why a camera failed. If the policy really is that camera failures just happen , then in cases impacted by camera failure then would the police be not negligent for putting a camera back in service without knowing the reason why it failed?
BWH
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Spankymonkey » Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:32 pm

What exactly do you believe the police are liable for in this instance? They are under no statutory obligation to use BWV, nor do any of their policies and procedures constitute law. Using a BWV camera that fails and is misused the way you described is not criminal negligence. You have no claim you can bring against the police as you have not identified any cause of action nor do you have any evidence that the police tampered with the camera, just your belief that they did.

Nobody here is qualified to answer all the technical questions you ask about BWV. Only the police, or perhaps the manufacturers of those cameras can answer those questions. You would be better to write up your questions as a Freedom of Information request and send it to the relevant force.
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:00 am

Spankymonkey wrote:Using a BWV camera that fails and is misused the way you described is not criminal negligence...

No, but if the failure didn't happen and is only an excuse to withhold evidence, which is what I understand OP is alleging, then that would introduce criminal aspects.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Next

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest