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 BWH » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:29 pm

Spankymonkey wrote: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.


First of all I don't believe it failed but for arguments sake lets say it was genuine failure. The fact is that this failure lead to a criminal conviction and lead to the exoneration of the officer. Surely the issue is then did the actions of the police fail to reach a standard of competence that would allow them escape the charge of negligence. If there is proof of repeated instances of devices failing but returned to service without investigation or recording of errors , which is what the officer accepts he did in this case, then my loss in this case is something they could of reasonably foreseen and taken preventive action. If the police car had brakes failure and knocked over a person and the problem was known or there was evidence of poor maintenance of police cars there would be trouble

Spankymonkey wrote: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.


My claim is simple , there is 40 minutes footage missing and that on the balance of probabilities due to the total lack of any credibility in the polices version of events , the 2 most probable outcomes is that due to the police been aware of the importance of the evidence they failed to disclose recorded footage and that what has been portrayed as the MASTER COPY wasn't a bit for bit copy of what was recorded OR that they willfully failed to record the incident when it swung against them

The lack of credibility in the polices version is

1) Their view that it isn't possible to tamper with the footage , which is wholly false especially as separate files were created
2) No proof is offered of when the MASTER was produced
3) No proof that the MASTER isn't in fact a edited VERSION of the real MASTER
4) The officer the officer was blissfully unaware the device wasn't recording , he only realized he was missing 40 minutes back in the station despite the fact the RED light wouldn't of worked
5) He claims he has no idea why it failed AS he didn't report the incident DESPITE knowing that the lack of footage would lead to questions
6) They certainly had the motivation to NOT disclose the evidence
7) On the footage one of the officers says to turn the camera off

I would suggest that if the court fails to agree THEN they must address the issue of whether necessary steps are taken to prevent camera failures and on that score the officer has damned the police by suggesting he never investigated the failure which would be a dereliction of duty
BWH
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:18 pm

I am not commenting on the merit of OP's assertions, but he does make a valid point: these cameras ought not be able to fail and that failure to go unnoticed. If they were cheap and cheerful things bought for £20 a pop at the local market, then such failures might be expected, but I imagine they cost considerably more than that and for them to fail so readily undermines their very purpose.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 8907
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 dls » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:40 pm

This may be a tough situation, but it has all the hallmarks of some optimistic guesswork both as to the law and as to what may or may not have happened.

Talk of officer's negligence here is misplaced.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11494
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:09 pm

dls wrote:This may be a tough situation, but it has all the hallmarks of some optimistic guesswork both as to the law and as to what may or may not have happened...

I am reading it mainly as a not unreasonable optimism about the capabilities of the equipment.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 8907
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 BWH » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:04 pm

dls wrote:This may be a tough situation, but it has all the hallmarks of some optimistic guesswork both as to the law and as to what may or may not have happened.

Talk of officer's negligence here is misplaced.


It may well be misplaced in this case because I don't think it was mechanical failure but the question is what happens when there is mechanical failure and you seem to have a very pro police view of the world

Are you seriously suggesting that , the public should accept in good faith from the police every time they say that a BWC failed due to mechanical failure? That would be outrageous and effectively the police can record what they want and stop recording when they feel like it and then blame it all on technical failure. The victims will not just be the members of the public adversely affected by these actions but the genuine officer whose device fails. There is millions of pounds invested in these camera's , YET we are expected to expect failure as a natural occurrences. That is not the way it works in ANY other industry. If a device or software fails there is a cottage industry created with people looking at the defect , YET seemingly in the police these errors are just accepted and to allow errors go undetected and not take due care to minimize its re-occurrence is negligent

It is the police themselves who claim they didn't investigate the fault and if true that is wrong. As with police cases the action is against the organisation not the individual , so if there is proof of non recording of faults is widespread then the organisation as a whole is guilty of negligence in the same way that if known banking defects went unrecorded and your account loses money. What happens if a serious assault occurred that wasn't recorded a device with a troubled history? The polices failure could result if the offender going free and the victim having to live with that
BWH
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby dls » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:33 pm

We none of us know - including the OP. There are many ocasions when we think we know something but are quite unable to prove it, and without that proof, nothing can be done. The OP appears to have hit a brick wall.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11494
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Body Worn Camera footage

Postby BWH » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:40 pm

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
BWH
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:10 pm

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: 249
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: 8907
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: 249
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest