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

Body Worn Camera footage

All matters involving criminal law

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Spankymonkey » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:04 pm

BWH wrote:But why is onus on me ?, why isn't it on the police to offer supporting evidence to back their version despite this been very easy for them


Because everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence when accused of a crime; even the police. It is the job of the prosecutor to prove that the alleged offence was committed and by whom, not the job of the accused to prove that they are innocent.

Besides which, if you intend to make a criminal allegation against the police, who will you be reporting it to? The police. Therefore that criminal complaint, in the first instance, will be dealt with via the police's formal civil complaints process, rather than the criminal complaints process.

Incidentally it's already been established with Osama Elguzouli Daf V Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that the police cannot be sued for negligence. Although I believe that there may be some ECHR rulings that dispute that.
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:43 pm

dls wrote:We none of us know - including the OP...

But what we do know is what the technology is capable of. The people that try have got computers so reliable that they only go wrong because they're hit by passing neutrinos, or at the other end of the scale, you can get a basic body-cam for less than a tenner.
For what I expect the police to be paying, it simply is not acceptable that they go wrong as readily as they appear to have done here.

Note that that doesn't suggest that it didn't go wrong: we do not know and even if we did,it would probably be too big a battle to prove, but assuming that it did go wrong, then that is not acceptable: unless they are normally extremely reliable and this was a just very improbable coincidence.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9909
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Spankymonkey » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:52 pm

The BWV used by the police cost around £800 each, and you are quite correct Hairy, to expect them not to fail in the way the officer describes. I would be more inclined to believe that it was selective in-camera editing on behalf of the officer wearing the unit than a flat battery, or other technical error.

Unfortunately the police are allowed (and even encouraged) to switch their cameras on and off throughout their interactions with the public for all manner of reasons. The officer has claimed his unit switched off all by itself. That is odd, given that he could have admitted the more likely truth - that he switched the camera off himself - then cited one of the numerous pre-prepared excuses police officers are given by the College of Policing to justify their selective editing. Instead he has opted for the least likely option. Probably because he knows the camera will never be checked and even if it is, and found to be working perfectly, shoulders will be shrugged and no further suspicions aroused. The police aren't in the habit of investigating themselves. Therefore the OPs option is to investigate the matter for them.

All he can expect in that regard is obfuscation and resistance.

It also seems a little late in the day given that the prosecution has already concluded, and matters of camera tampering should have been put before the court during the pre-trial hearing.

However, as BWV is a fairly recent introduction in Britain, you can expect to hear a lot of 'camera error' claims by misbehaving cops in the coming years.
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:04 am

Spankymonkey wrote:However, as BWV is a fairly recent introduction in Britain, you can expect to hear a lot of 'camera error' claims by misbehaving cops in the coming years.

Probably best to get that nipped in the bud.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9909
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby 3.14 » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:51 am

Hairyloon wrote:
Spankymonkey wrote:However, as BWV is a fairly recent introduction in Britain, you can expect to hear a lot of 'camera error' claims by misbehaving cops in the coming years.

Probably best to get that nipped in the bud.
Be my guest...https://beta.met.police.uk/contact-us/
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:42 am

BWH wrote:But why is onus on me ?, why isn't it on the police to offer supporting evidence to back their version despite this been very easy for them


Because you are contemplating an action against the Police, and the onus is on any claimant to prove their case. It's not enough to show there is something fishy about the Police's explanation for the situation, nor just that the video didn't work when it ought to have done. You need to show exactly how the Police fell below what could reasonably be expected of them (which may be an uphill task in itself), but more importantly how that breach of their duty led directly to the harm you suffered. It appears you have been convicted of an offence: there must have been other evidence which was sufficiently compelling for the Court to convict you - evidence which proved your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. How are you going to prove that the video evidence would have been so overwhelming that it would have displaced all that other evidence? In the criminal case it appears that the Court didn't believe that the absence of video evidence cast doubt on the prosecution case.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby diy » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:32 am

Depending on the type of camera used and the associated meta data, it may be possible to prove or disprove the camera auto stopped and powered down or was manually stopped.

the histogram and audio data can often be effected when power levels are low. Also the camera settings might change if the camera was manually stopped and started where the light conditions changed.

There may even be an audio spike picking up the hand movement. You might not hear it, but you will see it in the histogram
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby atticus » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:37 am

Do you seriously think the police will agree to that analysis?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19524
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby diy » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:49 am

I've no idea.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:28 pm

atticus wrote:Do you seriously think the police will agree to that analysis?

Upon what grounds do you suggest that they refuse? Other than the right to refuse to incriminate oneself.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9909
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron