Lets do the interviews on the streets
Then we don't have to worry about all those pesky lawyers.
The Home Office wants cops to use body-worn cameras to carry out suspect interviews away from the police station, according to revised rules on the tech. If accepted, the draft proposals – which are part of a broader update to the codes of practice in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act – will grant police the power to use …
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Street incidents are often recorded by many, many mobile phones. It's amazing how many people would prefer to film rather than, say, help with the CPR or call an ambulance.
But it's quite hard to prove evidence hasn't been tampered with if it comes from a mobile phone.
Presumably this has to be done under caution and the suspect advised of their rights? Otherwise I'd suggest whatever the suspect has said would not be admissible in court. Any criminal worth their salt is just going to request a lawyer and refuse to talk further. Can't see this helping reduce time spent back at the nick unless they get an admission of guilt right on the spot.
Criminals are surprisingly willing to talk, even after they've been read their rights. Getting them moments after arrest, before they've had time to come down off the fear and adrenaline and think more calmly on their situation, might increase the chances of a confession given after they've been notified of their right to an attorney.
"Otherwise I'd suggest whatever the suspect has said would not be admissible in court. "
You'd suggest wrongly.
"Any criminal worth their salt is just going to request a lawyer and refuse to talk further."
Habitual criminals know the system and don't take advice from wannabe Internet lawyers who don't. So they will often admit guilt early and get on with their day.
"their abilities to change the behaviour of cops and people has been repeatedly called into question"
I don't see changing behaviour as being the essential function. I'd regard them as being a source of evidence of what the behaviour actually was. Of course evidence means the expensive business of putting together and presenting a court case. If someone was wanting them to change behaviour they were just trying to save money. It looks as if they still are.
Quite. Working with the police I had occasion to talk to a senior NI office, who (again anecdotally - a shame they don't understand the use of collecting data even if noisy) said that they believed the little ref light indicating the recording was being made reduced the tendency of both officers and members of the public to 'grandstand' and at least make a pretence of civility....
It concluded there was little evidence that wearing BWCs led to a reduction in use of force by officers, cut civilian complaints, or affected judicial outcomes.
But these were US police who don't appear to have any problems shooting people in the presence of witnesses - quite content to believe they will be exonerated (it the suspect is black anyway)
to update law in the way, that if there is conflict and no recording of conduct/activity of officers (for whatever reason), version of person under conduct will be considered truth and valid regardless number of officers saying something different? I believe this would motivate officers to check their devices carefully/regularly and prevent public from misconducts.
The idea that body cameras have a "malfunction" rate even 1/10th of what police claim is laughable. How many of us have had our phones "malfunction" and stop working? Even after they've been dropped and the screen is shattered the damn things keep working, which is why you see people walking around with broken screens using them as normal. Body cameras are designed to do a lot less, and can be made a lot more durable, so they ought to be more reliable than the cell phones we're carrying.
You really should look at both the failure rate (0.03%) and the reported errors ("null pointer exception", "unexpected error during initialisation", "application received the following error assertion error", "User only gets a please wait message but nothing ever happens. User has tried rebooting") before making these sorts of completely bogus claims.
Even if these were hardware failures, as you suggest, what do you think the effect of a smashed lens on a camera would be? Or a gob of spit? Might it affect image quality at all?
> Even if these were hardware failures, as you suggest, what do you think the effect of a smashed lens on a camera would be? ... Might it affect image quality at all?
Depends on the lens design, but assuming only a knackered front element, potentially no noticable image quality degredation (I've seen SLR camera lenses with chipped, broken, or very heavily marked front elements which showed no degredation of image quality beyond an increased tendency to flare). Rear lens elements, however ...
@DougS
> might increase the chances of a confession given after they've been notified of their right to an attorney
Being questioned without legal adviceOnce you’ve asked for legal advice, the police can’t question you until you’ve got it - with some exceptions.
The police can make you wait for legal advice in serious cases, but only if a senior officer agrees.
The longest you can be made to wait before getting legal advice is 36 hours after arriving at the police station (or 48 hours for suspected terrorism).
Source: Being arrested: your rights [www.gov.uk]
So it would seem the best way to avoid being bounced into a confession under the influence of cortisol and adrenaline would be to ask for legal advice immediately after being cautioned. False confessions are a real thing.
"The longest you can be made to wait before getting legal advice is 36 hours after arriving at the police station"
So, with these rules on street interviews, you could be arrested and then "interviewed" continuously (using multiple offices in a relay, if necessary) without a lawyer?
"if a suspect refuses this kind of recording, they must first lodge their objection on camera."
Can you refuse to make your objection on camera or does that need to be done on camera?
As always I can see this being abused. "Admit it now and I'll give you a caution" will probably be the most used one. Will these videos be admissible in court? Look ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the accused is clearly out of breath and sweating.
This might work fine in less serious cases and could be quite useful. However, for more serious crimes, suspects and reluctant witnesses should be interviewed at the police station partly because they'll probably get a better recording (without, e.g. a big truck/lorry going by).
There are also psychological reasons: criminals and reluctant witnesses are less likely to speak when they are on their "home turf," where they are more comfortable. If the crime is a serious/violent one, being taken to a police station for an interview underlines the seriousness of the matter to the suspect or witness.
That depends upon your location.
For instance, if you are arrested at Wellingborough/Rushden, you will go to Kettering.
That is the nearest custody suite.
There are a very large quantity of locations where you will travel/be taken over 20 miles to the nearest place with detention facilities/room for questioning, with recording facilities.
I suspect that a considerable alteration to PACE will be needed, since the current recording media is required to be incapable of later alteration: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/177009/response/460589/attach/12/PACE%20Code%20E.pdf
The current body-worn video/audio recorders do not meet the legal requirements currently in force, and would be inadmissible in court.
In short, this seems deliberate circumvention of the legal requirements needed for suspect questioning.
Doubtless we will see more shrill cries from the Nazi-media, sorry-the sun/mail/telegraph, when cases are thrown out.....
PACE prohibits them from dragging you to the interview room.
So they'll probably try to coax you into a holding cell somehow, then just bring the interview there.
The silver lining is they'll probably won't bother if they can't conduct the interview. Which also means "adverse inference" can't apply either. (R vs. Hind (2005))
"They are going to streamline and modernise that system too. Each police car will carry a stepladder so that the fall can be conducted on the front line."
Obligatory Discworld Quote:
"Of course, you'd have nothing to fear from us," said Vimes. "Although you might trip on your way down the stairs to the cells."
"There's no stairs down to your cells!"
"Stairs can be arranged."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pterry icon, El Reg?
This post has been deleted by its author
Do body-worn cameras have two independent recording systems, as required at a police interview suite? The suspect is entitled to a copy of their interview (in reality, this is given to their lawyer).
Without this, I think a good lawyer will be able to have the interview struck off as being illegally conducted.
What happens if the person has Mental Health problems or is dyslexic and needs an appropriate adult present? Are they meant to have the capability to understand they need to talk to a camera without having this explained first in a controlled safe environment?
This sounds like a way to just save money at any cost, regardless to real justice or human rights!!!
Makes me sick!