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