Video efidence - ACPO view

[dodgy]

A rather overlong article imo, but here it is.
http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/new-police-guidelines-for-video-footage/

Looks like in many cases, the evidence captures by helmet cameras and the like are at most likely only to result in a letter to the offender. I imagine this would not be the case if there was significant injury caused.

 

[BSRU]

A rather overlong article imo, but here it is.
http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/new-police-guidelines-for-video-footage/

Looks like in many cases, the evidence captures by helmet cameras and the like are at most likely only to result in a letter to the offender. I imagine this would not be the case if there was significant injury caused.

I was told something very similar by the local traffic police in Wiltshire, they are only really interested in incidents where someone is injured, that is me. Despite capturing some awful driving because no collision occurred and no-one is hurt they will not take any action at all, meaning bad driving goes unpunished and is more like to occur.

 

[PpPete]

Whilst I can sort of see why the rules evidence make prosecution (for using a mobile phone while driving) unlikely on the basis of helmet cam footage alone, I dan't see why they can't issue a FPN rather than just send a letter to the offender.

 

[BSRU]

My view after my chat with a traffic officer is that they feel the video captured can be challenged in court as it has not been handled in accordance with some evidence guidelines and could be tampered with.
Strangely my Contour Plus embeds, four times a second, GPS data in the video file which means, as far as I know, tampering is easy to spot.

 

[dodgy]

My view after my chat with a traffic officer is that they feel the video captured can be challenged in court as it has not been handled in accordance with some evidence guidelines and could be tampered with.
Strangely my Contour Plus embeds, four times a second, GPS data in the video file which means, as far as I know, tampering is easy to spot.

It's not so much that tampering is easy or difficult to spot. IT's more about the chain of custody of evidence. Evidence is kept under lock and key and it has to be signed out and back in again, it's also in sealed bags. I have worked in computer forensics and am familiar with police expectations and procedures when handing off evidence to them. I guess the same practices are being extended to video evidence captured from members of the public.

 

[BSRU]

It's not so much that tampering is easy or difficult to spot. IT's more about the chain of custody of evidence. Evidence is kept under lock and key and it has to be signed out and back in again, it's also in sealed bags. I have worked in computer forensics and am familiar with police expectations and procedures when handing off evidence to them. I guess the same practices are being extended to video evidence captured from members of the public.

Strangely the evidence captured by private CCTV is considered acceptable.

 

[dodgy]

Strangely the evidence captured by private CCTV is considered acceptable.

Yep, because the CCTV when installed will be accompanied with procedures for employees (whether they are followed or not is another matter), so it gives some level of assurance.

Just giving you the facts as I know them, I think police should be a little more robust than 'sending a letter'

 

[dellzeqq]

A rather overlong article imo, but here it is.
http://www.croydoncyclist.co.uk/new-police-guidelines-for-video-footage/

Looks like in many cases, the evidence captures by helmet cameras and the like are at most likely only to result in a letter to the offender. I imagine this would not be the case if there was significant injury caused.

that's not what the ACPO letter says

 

[dodgy]

Oh really? What does it say then, I must have misunderstood it.

 

[BSRU]

Yep, because the CCTV when installed will be accompanied with procedures for employees (whether they are followed or not is another matter), so it gives some level of assurance.

Just giving you the facts as I know them, I think police should be a little more robust than 'sending a letter'

I understand the need for procedures as defending lawyers will challenge the legitimacy of any evidence. I just wish the police would consider other options rather than prosecution or a letter(if you have access to RoadSafe).

 

[gaz]

As I summarised at the end. It won't change much because the way they are suggesting video footage is used, is already done like that.

 

[Arsen Gere]

A friend of mine works for the Ministry of Justice, she says the CPS are completely swamped due to cuts. They can't handle the serious cases let alone anything like this. The number of courts are being reduced, the staff are being made redundant, the case load is backing up.
The olympics will mean a lot of PC's won't be available for court duty over the summer and there is no chance of getting cases processed.
So a nice letter to the offender is easy, cheap and does not show what a horrible state the court system is in.

 

[Sore Thumb]

Was there not a case where some offensive woman was videoed on a train with a camera phone. The police were quite happy to accept this as evidence as far as I am aware.

Or is it the public opinion that is the deciding factor of what video evidence to accept and not to accept?

 

[Red Light]

They seem quite happy to investigate based on this video too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tacks-cyclist-holds-traffic-country-lane.html

 

[dodgy]

Just seen that video on road.cc (I don't ever go to the Daily Mail), I reckon it's a spoof.