Magistrates Court for sitting in First Class with Standard Ticket.

[mallard]

People need to remember that bodycams exist solely for the protection of the person wearing them and the organisation they represent. Except in very exceptional circumstances, evidence from them will not be available to exonerate a member of the public. If you wish to record an event for your own protection/evidence, you need to make your own recording.

 

[Haywain]

People need to remember that bodycams exist solely for the protection of the person wearing them and the organisation they represent. Except in very exceptional circumstances, evidence from them will not be available to exonerate a member of the public. If you wish to record an event for your own protection/evidence, you need to make your own recording.

And it is fairly unlikely that, if a recording from a bodycam has been retained, you will be exonerated as the recording will have been kept for evidential purposes.

 

[Fare-Cop]

People need to remember that bodycams exist solely for the protection of the person wearing them and the organisation they represent. Except in very exceptional circumstances, evidence from them will not be available to exonerate a member of the public. If you wish to record an event for your own protection/evidence, you need to make your own recording.

And it is fairly unlikely that, if a recording from a bodycam has been retained, you will be exonerated as the recording will have been kept for evidential purposes.

There likely was no evidence to destroy. As @jon0844 said, body cameras don't save the footage unless the operator specifically presses a button.

As someone who, for several years has been an authorised viewer of bodycam footage in exactly these circumstances, I can say that the primary purpose of providing and using body worn video recording equipment (BWV) is to moderate the behaviour of both parties. The additional benefit is to record useable evidence in any case where an offence is deemed serious enough to warrant prosecution.

It is not strictly true to say that "body cameras don't save the footage unless the operator specifically presses a button". The footage is automatically retained. It is of course perfectly true to say that the camera records nothing unless the operator switches it on and reminds the subject that video recording is in operation, but the wearer plays no further part in controlling the record other than that.

The approved standard of BWV for non-police agencies and the policy for its use was originated by the former Chief Constable of Hampshire (Andy Marsh) and the process is that all & any recording is retained for 30 days, but cannot be viewed or altered in any way by the BWV user nor by any third party.

The recording will be viewed independently by an authorised viewer, who is also normally someone senior in a decision making role with regard to prosecuting, in order to determine whether any footage is of sufficient evidential quality to be of use in any prosecution.

If it is of such quality, then that footage will be proactively marked and retained. All other footage is automatically destroyed 30 days after recording.

 

[mallard]

As someone who, for several years has been an authorised viewer of bodycam footage in exactly these circumstances, I can say that the primary purpose of providing and using body worn video recording equipment (BWV) is to moderate the behaviour of both parties. The additional benefit is to record useable evidence in any case where an offence is deemed serious enough to warrant prosecution.

[...]

Nothing you've said leads me to believe that evidence from a bodycam will be available to exonerate a member of the public in a case where the person wearing the camera is "in the wrong".

In a case where, for example, a bodycam-equipped member of railway staff authorises a passenger to travel on a train where their ticket would not usually be valid and they are later challenged by a different member of staff, a passenger can have no expectation that the exonerating recording will be available to their defence. The expectation is that, if such a recording is requested, it would be "unable" to be found (with the usual excuses; camera wasn't switched on, recording was not retained, clerical error means it was deleted, "data protection" claims, etc. etc.). This sort of thing is exactly what is being seen in many cases internationally involving staff and officials wearing such cameras.

Bodycam evidence will be used to help prosecute a member of the public, but only in exceptional circumstances would it be available to exonerate them. Members of the public should make their own recordings of anything they believe could be necessary as evidence. If staff members refuse to state things "on the record", then clearly you shouldn't trust them "off the record" either.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Nothing you've said leads me to believe that evidence from a bodycam will be available to exonerate a member of the public in a case where the person wearing the camera is "in the wrong".

In a case where, for example, a bodycam-equipped member of railway staff authorises a passenger to travel on a train where their ticket would not usually be valid and they are later challenged by a different member of staff, a passenger can have no expectation that the exonerating recording will be available to their defence. The expectation is that, if such a recording is requested, it would be "unable" to be found (with the usual excuses; camera wasn't switched on, recording was not retained, clerical error means it was deleted, "data protection" claims, etc. etc.). This sort of thing is exactly what is being seen in many cases internationally involving staff and officials wearing such cameras.

Bodycam evidence will be used to help prosecute a member of the public, but only in exceptional circumstances would it be available to exonerate them. Members of the public should make their own recordings of anything they believe could be necessary as evidence. If staff members refuse to state things "on the record", then clearly you shouldn't trust them "off the record" either.

I couldn't disagree more.

Having on more than one occasion viewed, assessed and come to the conclusion that a member of staff was in the wrong.

In each case the member of staff concerned was in fact removed from their role.

 

[mallard]

Having on more than one occasion viewed, assessed and come to the conclusion that a member of staff was in the wrong.

Yes, but in those cases your organisation has chosen not to prosecute after viewing the evidence. Once it has been decided to prosecute, the only bodycam evidence that can be expected to be presented is that which supports the prosecution.

I'm talking about cases where the bodycam that recorded the exonerating evidence may be worn by a different member of staff than the one whose actions have resulted in the potential for prosecution ("in the wrong" doesn't mean the member of staff was acting maliciously, they can be "wrong" because they are not in possession of all the facts) and may be employed by a different organisation. In those cases, there can be no expectation that the exonerating recording can be accessed by the defence.

 

[najaB]

It is not strictly true to say that "body cameras don't save the footage unless the operator specifically presses a button". The footage is automatically retained. It is of course perfectly true to say that the camera records nothing unless the operator switches it on and reminds the subject that video recording is in operation, but the wearer plays no further part in controlling the record other than that.

That's not universally true. One of the issues with body-worn cameras is that the operator may not remember (or may not want to) turn it on in the heat of the moment. So many (though not all) newer body cams start recording the moment they are powered on, and are always recording. They have storage for at least a couple hour's worth of video, and overwrite the oldest footage unless a command is sent to prevent overwrite.

With the newest cameras which have independent data connections, the command can be sent remotely as well as by the wearer.

 

[Robertj21a]

So, has Jessica gone to court yet ?

 

[EBlackadder]

OP,

You mentioned this letter turned up around 6 months after the offence.

Under Section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, all Summary Offences (essetially low level stuff that can only be heard in the Magistrates' Court) must be 'laid' before the Court within 6 months of the offence. If it isn't the prosecution is abandoned.

This is something any duty solicitor should pick up on, but it may help calm you if indeed they're outside of the timings. To know for sure you'd need to provide us with the date of the offence, the offence you're being prosecuted under and the date this matter was first put before the Magistrates (if, indeed, it has).

 

[some bloke]

I don't quite know what a Conditional Discharge has to do with an Immigration Tribunal but a Conditional Discharge in criminal proceedings is indeed not a conviction. Nor is a fine, nor is a prison sentence. They are all sentences following a conviction (which comes either from a guilty plea or being found guilty at trial). As far as the Rehabilitation of Offenders' Act goes a conviction dealt with by way of a Conditional Discharge is deemed "spent" when the period of the discharge (which can be anything between six months and three years) has ended.

Fair enough, though that 2014 decision says that a person can lawfully answer "no" when asked if they have been convicted, before a conviction dealt with by way of a conditional discharge is spent. This would seem to need another thread if someone would like to disentangle it.