back to article UK.gov: Use police body cams to grill suspects at scene of crime

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 …

  1. John G Imrie

    Lets do the interviews on the streets

    Then we don't have to worry about all those pesky lawyers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Terminator

      Re: Should we call them...

      Judges?

      Wrong icon I know... but that is the *other* type of terminator. ;)

      1. John G Imrie

        Re: Should we call them...

        I am the Law

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Should we call them...

          I dredd the consquences

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Should we call them...

          "I am the Law!"

          A very tiny number of us will get a mental vision of Scott Ian and co when we read that!

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. AlexGreyhead

    Is there a way that the officer can be certain the recording is being made, lest they record an interview and only later find that the video/audio wasn't captured?

    1. wyatt

      Probably not, there are problems with interview room equipment that you believe has recorded you interview, only to find that it isn't available.

    2. ArrZarr Silver badge
      Boffin

      Hold on a second, is this a situation where a Google glass would actually be useful?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Unhappy

        Something tells me...

        ... offering to use your own mobile phone to record the incident might get turned down?

        1. Adam 52 Silver badge

          Re: Something tells me...

          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.

    3. Muscleguy

      I would more worried about an audio only interview being conducted with the suspect in a headlock or with a truncheon threatening an intimate body part. I would absolutely insist on the camera being on or no interview.

  3. JamesPond
    Terminator

    Under caution?

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Under caution?

      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.

    2. Adam 52 Silver badge

      Re: Under caution?

      "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.

  4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "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.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      Anecdotal evidence suggests that body worn cameras do change behaviour, notwithstanding one limited academic study. The pissed up city bankers trashing a wine bar will typically go home quietly when the camera comes on, for example.

      1. BebopWeBop

        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)

  5. trpajzlik

    Is there a plan

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is there a plan

      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.

      1. Adam 52 Silver badge

        Re: Is there a plan

        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?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is there a plan

          > 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 ...

  6. Jonathan Richards 1 Silver badge
    Holmes

    @DougS

    > might increase the chances of a confession given after they've been notified of their right to an attorney

    Being questioned without legal advice

    Once 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.

    1. Allan George Dyer
      Headmaster

      After arriving at a Police station?

      "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?

      1. Gazabone

        Re: After arriving at a Police station?

        In theory, possibly yes, but I strongly suspect use of that tactic would be regarded by the courts as abuse of process for which the custody officer is answerable.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "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.

  8. ma1010
    Meh

    This strikes me as a bad idea in some cases

    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.

    1. JohnMurray

      Re: This strikes me as a bad idea in some cases

      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.....

  9. Anonymous Noel Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Friendly reminder

    You can actually decline a police interview.

    Whether the Gest-- *ahem* Police actually want to go ahead and conduct it is another matter entirely, though.

    1. Reue

      Re: Friendly reminder

      I've always wondered this; What if you just refused to enter the interview room? Surely if you're going to go full 'no comment' or silent it's better to just never enter the room and avoid the police running a 30 minute speculative narrative?

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: Friendly reminder

        "What if you just refused to enter the interview room?"

        Once you're been arrested you mean? Presumably the same as if you refused to go into a cell.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Friendly reminder

        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))

  10. Winkypop Silver badge
    Devil

    Kafkaesque

    "if a suspect refuses this kind of recording, they must first lodge their objection on camera."

    Who writes these laws?

    Comedians?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Filmed on site?

    What about the 'mysterious fall' down the back stairs at the Plod Hut?

    Tradition is dying.

    ; n)

    1. Seajay#

      Re: Filmed on site?

      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.

      1. Kane
        Joke

        Re: Filmed on site?

        "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?

  12. This post has been deleted by its author

  13. Colin Miller

    Copy for the suspect?

    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.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mental Health

    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!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like