British cops to film you with 59k body-worn cameras by end of year Police forces are rapidly adopting body worn video (BWV) cameras with as many as 59,000 expected to be in use by the end of 2016/17 – according to chair of the police BWV user group Stephen Goodier. Goodier, who is also BWV programme manager, Hampshire Police, said as many as three-quarters of forces are in the process of …
Oh the camera doesnt have to be WORTH 59k. Just the supplier can charge that amount because its not the buyers money so they dont care about getting a good price.
Just like police batons cost £100 each in Northamptonshire and then £44 in Leicestershire, all because the buyer in Northamptonshire didnt negotiate very well and/or didnt care.
Seriously there are millions and millions of pounds to be saved in the public sector if people did their jobs correctly. Unfortunately they don't have the same pressures and cost saving willingness as the private sector, so the money gets wasted and put into the hands of big shareholders and bonuses for bosses.
And access to a solicitor & legal advice? How would that be maintained on the street?
Assuming Microsoft still has the high level friends it had during the Tony Blair days I assume that will be attempted through Skype.
"Sorry mate, we don't have a signal here"
Talking about friends, I guess that means stage 1 of Google Homeview is now in place*.
(*) the Germans got there first..
No reason it couldn't be done on the street or in someone's home, legal advisor has to drive somewhere, not necessarily the nick.
Or for those wanting to waive the right, which the regulars may well want to, although obvious scope for intimidation there.
But it doesn't make much sense because arrest isn't necessary for a voluntary interview.
This post has been deleted by its author
> access to a solicitor & legal advice? How would that be maintained on the street?
Ah, but you see, the copper just says "All I need you to do is answer a few questions and then you can be on your way, isn't that better than me having to take you down to the Station and then wait for ages for the Solicitor to turn up?"
Joe Public thinks "Oh, he's being friendly and helpful", answers the questions and then finds that they've managed to accidentally say something incriminating and they're nicked anyway.
If a copper wants to "ask you a few questions", the correct answer is "NO COMMENT".
DO NOT say *ANYTHING* without legal advice because they just want you to open your mouth and put your foot in it as that makes their job so much easier.
"If a copper wants to "ask you a few questions", the correct answer is "NO COMMENT"."
Oddly enough, they don't often ask questions. They make statements along the lines of "I put it to you that...." and since they didn't ask a question, there's nothing to answer. Then copper says "suspect did not respond", as if that implies something. They make leading statements to get you to say things without them having to actually ask outright or make specific accusations.
And access to a solicitor & legal advice? How would that be maintained on the street?
Do you get those if you've not been arrested?
There's a big distinction between questioning people and arresting them. Sure, you could have a lawyer present every time you interact with the police, but you might find that the only benefit is to your lawyer. As I understand it, if you are not arrested, you are under no obligation to tell the police anything anyway.
On the whole, I think BWCs are a very good thing.
They keep the police honest (they have been shown to reduce the number of complaints of heavy-handedness against the police), and they are also useful in gathering evidence, especially when a crime is in commission.
After all, video evidence of a crime being committed stands up much better in court than first-person testimony from a police officer, and isn't subject to the human flaws of imperfect recall. This can also be valuable in the sadly all-too-common domestic violence cases. Where an officer attends a report of a DV attack (for instance a man beating his partner), the video evidence can show the injuries a victim may have received, without later having to rely on a combination of doctor's reports and dragging the victim through court as a witness, a process criminologists refer to as 'revictimisation'.
Is actually the moment the cop says "Hang on a minute, I want to ask you something". As soon as you are unable to leave freely, you have been "Arrested". That is different from being charged, or held.
To test if you have been arrested, try responding "No thanks" and walking away. See what happens next.
I despise the constant surveillance, and just sigh for the future security breach and info sharing that storing the data in the "cloud" will end in, but the unblinking badge cam should reduce the incidents of cops tramping on civil rights, or at least make cases easier to prosecute and yield larger civil fines against that special kind of cop who do not do the right things the right way.
It is hoped that the cameras are to be used to interview suspects at crime scenes rather than arresting them and taking them into a police station.
So much easier interviewing suspects when there isn't a duty solicitor around to give them legal advice. If they would be arrested, then it is on suspicion of committing an arrestable offence, so they will be interviewed "under caution"? Without benefit of the free legal advice which they are entitled to if arrested?
This post has been deleted by its author
In France, a policeman can arrest you on absolutely NO grounds ... does not have to give you a reason, and can keep you for 24 hours. With recent anti-terror laws, if they can convince a judge that you might have terrorist links, they can extend that up to 144 hours (6 days) - to make sure you lose your job.
They can extend to 48 hours if they can charge you for something that can get you 1 or more years in jail. If the case is difficult, as in, they do not yet know what to charge you with exactly, they can extend to 72hours ...
This post has been deleted by its author
Tony also made it illegal to sell grey squirrels.
More to the point, it is illegal to release grey squirrels into the wild. This means that if you accidentally capture a squirrel, for instance in a rodent trap intended to catch rats, you legally have to destroy it. You also have to do this in a humane way, or you get prosecuted for animal cruelty. This happened to one man who knew he couldn't release the squirrel, so despatched it in the most humane way he could think of by drowning it:
This happened to one man who knew he couldn't release the squirrel, so despatched it in the most humane way he could think of by drowning it
They should have waterboarded him for that. It's the most humane punishment I can think of. After all, it merely induces the experience of drowning. </sarcasm>
"*Did you know that it's now an offence to create a nuclear explosion?"
Reading the section you quoted that isn't true, under that bit of law you can perfectly legally create a nuclear explosion.. you just have to convince the court it wasn't a weapon 'no officer it was a science experiment that went wrong'...
Ok maybe the man on the street may have problems convincing a judge on that grounds but at least our scientists can actually research nuclear stuff which is an improvement over some other laws..
It is hoped that the cameras are to be used to interview suspects at crime scenes rather than arresting them and taking them into a police station.
I wonder how this will square with PACE? "Crime scene" interviews and formal interviews after an arrest are hardly equivalent to each other, even allowing for a difference in location; an arrested suspect is entitled to legal representation, and the interview will be dual recorded at a station designated under PACE with one copy being made available to the suspect's lawyer.
I am not saying that there is no place for video recordings using bodyworn cameras taken at a scene or during an immediate investigation; in that respect it is simply a technological variant of an audio recording or an old - fashioned one with "contemporaneous notes" taken by the interviewing officer. As a formal interview that would form part of the evidence chain leading to charge and prosecution rather than an arrest and detention under PACE (and all that that entails) IMHO it stinks.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and my previous employment with a police force was technical, not as an attested constable.
I was on a night out one night, a friend of mine was attacked by four men. He was despatching with the fourth when the police turned up. As they saw him winning, they arrested him. The next day, the CCTV exonerated him for any assault or whatever charges.
That night one of the PO's got his truncheon out because I asked to see his serial number ( he'd removed it ). Another tried to twist my arm around my back and arrest me when I tapped him gently on the arm to get his attention.
Anyway they did my mate for being 'drunk and disorderly' in the van ( obviously no witnesses ).
After that night I lost all trust in the police. Unfortunately it was before videocameras were part of mobiles.
Evidence from what was said prior to an arrest could always be recorded in the policeman/woman's notebook and often used in evidence at court. It was always open to dispute of course, and is, in principle at least, treated rather differently to what is said in a formal interview under caution (which have had to be recorded since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).
What the the body worn cameras ought to so is remove much of the "subjectivity" involved in remembering what was actually said (even where is was recorded in a notebook). It should also, in principle give rather less leeway for the police to represent things in their way.
It should also, in principle give rather less leeway for the police to represent things in their way.
No argument there.
It's the idea that people that need to be questioned shouldn't be taken to the police station that concerns me. If the police were willing to do that before then it must have been for a reason, and if it's a reason good enough to take somebody in, then the people being questioned ought to have the benefit of legal advice. The fact that the interview is being recorded is beside the point in that regard.
I can understand to some degree why the police might want this: they are under huge pressure to work miracles with an ever-shrinking amount of resources and personnel, but their attempts to achieve this by sacrificing or limiting our rights isn't an acceptable response to that particular challenge IMO.
@ Steven Jones: all true, but... as a subsitute for formal arrest and recorded interview in accordance with PACE (as it currently stands) with an accused having access to legal advice, all properly recorded * by the Custody Sergeant in the Custody Log this idea still stinks, particularly if the suspect (or even any witness) could be legitimately described as "vulnerable".
* Yes I know I am throwing myself wide open to accusations of over - optimism but if a person has access to legal advice the opportunities for errors (cough) are significantly reduced if not eliminated.
Anybody who makes blanket statements on the internet deserves everything that is coming their way.
FTFY.
In this case, the camera doesn't lie. The full caution is:
"You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/when-youre-arrested
@JohnMurray, just to add to that; Anything THEY say can be used in evidence against you, without cameras. However, there must be some protections within the law if the fuzz are going to start questioning suspects in the street without any formal processing or observation of their rights to a lawyer and/or legal advice.
My other concern is what happens to the millions of hours of video that may not be incriminating at the time but could be dragged out at a later date to try to reinforce an unconnected incident or just used for fishing. With all this footage including random passers by, it is possible with the Nationwide facial recognition the cops would like to have on everybody that at some future time a cop could just feed an individusl's face into the system to see what they might have that could be used to implicate an innocent who has rubbed a cop up the wrong way for example.
So why are they spending what must be quite a lot of money in advance of those changes that will be required?
I think this works best without changes to the law.
In the event that a police officer is accused of malfeasance of any sort, the camera will usually answer the question immediately - so an innocent officer can be exonerated the same day, and a guilty one shown up for what he is[1].
Changes in the law to remove the PACE safeguards would be an enormous retrograde step.
Vic.
[1] Neglecting any camera fault / flat battery -type excuses (which would probably be grounds for increased scrutiny).
In the event that a police officer is accused of malfeasance of any sort
Yeah. Brings to mind recent US experience.
With the escalating 'War on Terror' and expectation of atrocities this side of La Manche - rather more often than once a decade, say - given how blithe HMG are about our traditional, at least in theory, way of life, maybe they expect to be routinely carrying handguns before much longer?
I worked a long time ago as a defence solicitor's clerk, and I still think back with fondness to one case which had video evidence from a freelance cameraman.
The police officer swore on oath that he had chased the defendant, never lost sight of him, and had definitely arrested the right man. The sight of his frozen panic-stricken face in the witness box when confronted with a video of him running past the defendant who was leaning against a van casually watching him go by...
Bring them on - cameras work to protect all of us from the mistelling of stories, fabricated, mistaken or true.
this was in the UK ?
Trial judges are there to see the rules of evidence are followed, and one of those rules - a *fundamental* rule, is the concept of "disclosure", which means one side can't pull a rabbit out of a hat (no matter what TV shows you watch) and go "ta-da !". Woe betide any side that tries that in a UK court - the judge would go ballistic and very likely seek to admonish the offending side (prosecution or defence) with the costs of the collapsed trial.
In reality, if such video evidence only became available once the trial had started (since it's axiomatic that had it been available before the trial, there would have been no trial) then the defence would have approached the judge to introduce new evidence, at which point the prosecution (CPS) would have a chance to review it. I would suspect at that point, the CPS would then offer no more evidence, and the judge would direct the jury to acquit.
There have been courtroom surprises, but they are rare. The only one I remember was of a person arrested by the police in the 1990s (it may have been the poll tax riots). The police claimed they were arrested at such and such a time, which placed them at the scene of an assault. As the case was being heard, a series of photographs was shown to the jury, one of which showed the arresting PC putting the accused in the police van.
With his wristwatch clearly visible, and showing a time completely different to the claimed time.
Sharp-eyed defence lawyer spotted it, and started asking questions about police procedure for synchronising watches before operations, and was assured it had been done. They then queried the picture, and (if memory serves again) the judge immediately shut the trial down.
...video evidence from a freelance cameraman... (snip) Bring them on - cameras work to protect all of us from the mistelling of stories, fabricated, mistaken or true.
I think you have a weak argument there. From your description the crucial evidence was based on video from a freelance cameraman. That's fine, but there is a world of difference between freelance footage and that obtained from bodyworn police cameras.
I suggest you have a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson,
and in particular the paragraph headed "Encounter with officer".
Don't overlook the possibility of unhelpful bodyworn camera evidence "going missing" or a particular camera being found to be faulty.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
