Camera footage and Hampshire Police

[Monkreadusuk]

I thought I'd make anyone interested aware of a recent conversation I've had with Hampshire Police.

After reporting an incident to them earlier in the month I have been contacted by a road traffic officer to follow up.

He informed me that any incident involving just the victim and the suspect (I.e. no other witnesses) would not normally be dealt with as a crime unless contact occurred. They are reviewing the video footage to see if it can be treated as independent evidence.

Secondly, he mentioned that any footage taken and placed in the public domain (youtube) could not be used as evidence. Therefore anyone who has such an incident is advised not to place the video on the internet.

Just a word of warning to any other head cammers out there in the Hampshire area.

I shall update the thread if anything changes and they decide to go ahead with it.

 

[numbnuts]

CCTV come to mind and the police always look at that.

 

[HLaB]

There's a few om the cammer's here that I think that have looked deeply into these things, you should maybe pm bentmikey or gaz; iirc it was them.

 

[gaz]

Strictly speaking it's not true, about the footage being in the public domain.
I was recently involved in a court case where the footage had been online for several months, had gone viral with over 15,000 hits and many of the viewers contacting the company.

However, the police were able to make a case, use the video footage in court and secured a prosecution. I was asked about why the footage was uploaded when I was being questioned but it was a relatively minor thing and didn't effect the outcome.

However if your force asks for such steps, then it is advisable to follow them.

Thank you for the information, I have added it to this page - http://www.cyclecamera.tv/reporting-videos-to-the-police/

 

[BentMikey]

Yes, The Cycling Silk has mentioned this in the past. It's really nothing more than an eccentricity of Hampshire Police, rather than something that really matters. I'd follow it though, else they'll just use it as an excuse to file your case in the bin.

 

[Cycling Dan]

I thought I'd make anyone interested aware of a recent conversation I've had with Hampshire Police.

After reporting an incident to them earlier in the month I have been contacted by a road traffic officer to follow up.

He informed me that any incident involving just the victim and the suspect (I.e. no other witnesses) would not normally be dealt with as a crime unless contact occurred. They are reviewing the video footage to see if it can be treated as independent evidence.

Secondly, he mentioned that any footage taken and placed in the public domain (youtube) could not be used as evidence. Therefore anyone who has such an incident is advised not to place the video on the internet.

Just a word of warning to any other head cammers out there in the Hampshire area.

I shall update the thread if anything changes and they decide to go ahead with it.

This has been covered before. If it does go to court normally the defense can say that the client has been prejudged therefor the trial is unfair. However its tosh - the CPS know how to handle this and have counters for it. Normally its best to upload after as recommend by your local force. Just to skip any issues.

 

[Matthew_T]

I thought I'd make anyone interested aware of a recent conversation I've had with Hampshire Police.

After reporting an incident to them earlier in the month I have been contacted by a road traffic officer to follow up.

He informed me that any incident involving just the victim and the suspect (I.e. no other witnesses) would not normally be dealt with as a crime unless contact occurred. They are reviewing the video footage to see if it can be treated as independent evidence.

Secondly, he mentioned that any footage taken and placed in the public domain (youtube) could not be used as evidence. Therefore anyone who has such an incident is advised not to place the video on the internet.

Just a word of warning to any other head cammers out there in the Hampshire area.

I shall update the thread if anything changes and they decide to go ahead with it.

This sounds like rubbish. I reported something to the police near New Years. My footage was online and they still used it. Only after the result of the incident did the inspector request me to take it down. But that was for the sole reason that the other party wanted me too.

 

[kipster]

I emailed Hampshire Police to ask if they had any online forms to report poor or dangerous driving, like some other forces. They stated that they don't but they are doing some awareness advertising on buses and bus shelters, shame the stagecoach drivers don't take notice of them. The process for reporting is via 101 but unless you have several witnesses they won't do much if anything. Their comments regarding video footage don't surprise me.

 

[Pale Rider]

A lot of coppers are fairly clueless about the way in which evidence is treated in court, partly because they rarely go there.

In the good old days, the local inspector would wander down to the quarter sessions with his stack of convictions, I mean prosecution cases, and put those cases before the magistrates.

This meant at least one copper in every area knew how the job worked at court.

Now the CPS prosecute the cases and both sides try to avoid calling police officers as witnesses, because their time is deemed to be better spent elsewhere.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Everyone has summed it up correctly. It can still be used, however the best way is to leave uploading it until after the case. Saves giving the CPS an excuse to drop the case if they bring up the 'clients been prejudged' issue.

That said, I suspect if BlackCountrySteve had uploaded his video first, the reaction it got of outrage against the driver may have prompted a charge rather than a local resolution... I only guess at this though!

 

[steve6690]

Well I investigate fatal collisions and we would definitely use head cam footage (for example) as long as its reliability can be assured.

 

[ufkacbln]

I have had some good experiences with Hampshire Police and Video.

They have always taken it seriously and I have been successful in that action has been taken over the driving

 

[Monkreadusuk]

I have had some good experiences with Hampshire Police and Video.

They have always taken it seriously and I have been successful in that action has been taken over the driving

Perhaps im speaking to the wrong officer then :P looks like mine won't be going any further.

Not sure if I should bother with the other footage I have.

 

[Black Country Ste]

Everyone has summed it up correctly. It can still be used, however the best way is to leave uploading it until after the case. Saves giving the CPS an excuse to drop the case if they bring up the 'clients been prejudged' issue.

That said, I suspect if BlackCountrySteve had uploaded his video first, the reaction it got of outrage against the driver may have prompted a charge rather than a local resolution... I only guess at this though!

On the other hand I think a lot of the outrage was because he wasn't charged. Say I'd uploaded immediately and under public pressure WMP charged him. Even if I hadn't named the company (it took me a few days to make the link), somebody else would have worked it out. I reckon the abuse the company received would have been enough to have the case thrown out. We'll never know!

 

[gaz]

On the other hand I think a lot of the outrage was because he wasn't charged. Say I'd uploaded immediately and under public pressure WMP charged him. Even if I hadn't named the company (it took me a few days to make the link), somebody else would have worked it out. I reckon the abuse the company received would have been enough to have the case thrown out. We'll never know!

My case with the B&T driver, the company got several hundred e-mails regarding the incident. It came up in court as a question but it was easy to blow over.