Dashcam footage |
Dashcam footage |
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 15:56
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 25 Oct 2019 Member No.: 106,338 |
Hello, this is more of a general question rather than being in relation to a specific case, but are there any solicitors who specialise in defending against motoring related prosecutions based on dashcam 'evidence', particular footage taken by ordinary drivers and then submitted to the police?
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 15:56
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 16:55
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Any motoring solicitor - I’m not aware of any that specialise in dash cam footage specifically.
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:07
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 59 Joined: 13 Sep 2019 Member No.: 105,719 |
|
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:19
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
When it comes to Court you stand up and say "can I please see the Home Office Type Approval document for the device in question?" To what end? Are photographs or footage taken by amateur photographers on non Type approved devices not admissible as evidence? |
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:20
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Any motoring solicitor - I’m not aware of any that specialise in dash cam footage specifically. When it comes to Court you stand up and say "can I please see the Home Office Type Approval document for the device in question?" Why? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:30
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 601 Joined: 7 May 2019 Member No.: 103,734 |
Any motoring solicitor - I’m not aware of any that specialise in dash cam footage specifically. When it comes to Court you stand up and say "can I please see the Home Office Type Approval document for the device in question?" The prosecution will say there is none, so what, next question please. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:39
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Any motoring solicitor - I’m not aware of any that specialise in dash cam footage specifically. When it comes to Court you stand up and say "can I please see the Home Office Type Approval document for the device in question?" Well if the intent is to get a laugh, it may work, for much else........ -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 18:58
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Any motoring solicitor - I’m not aware of any that specialise in dash cam footage specifically. When it comes to Court you stand up and say "can I please see the Home Office Type Approval document for the device in question?" It's genius. I bet all those convicted by such footage are kicking themselves now. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 21:51
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 21 Oct 2019 Member No.: 106,274 |
Hello, this is more of a general question rather than being in relation to a specific case, but are there any solicitors who specialise in defending against motoring related prosecutions based on dashcam 'evidence', particular footage taken by ordinary drivers and then submitted to the police? I am unaware that evidence in the form of dashcam/mobile phone imagery had to be of a “type approved” by the home office to be eligible for use in a prosecution, or restricted for use, therefore you will find there is no specific MR or MRS LOOPHOLE on this subject. Suppose this serves as a reminder that When in public spaces you have no right privacy and there for you should regulate ones driving to comply with rules of the road or face a high risk of being reported, and evidence collected of a breach of law of this type is purely down to the discretion of the magistrate/judge on the day to allow it or not, and as it is pertinent to an increasing rate of motoring prosecutions that solely relies on such imagery by the prosecution, I’m doubtful that any judge would say they would not allow such evidence to be used, and if it was disallowed the hurdle would be the evidence in verbal testimony against the defendant by the person who submitted the footage In the first place. I think it would be very foolhardy to try to “get out of trouble” by attempting set up a case based on attacking the use of evidence captured in dashcam or mobile. |
|
|
Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 22:18
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Hello, this is more of a general question rather than being in relation to a specific case, but are there any solicitors who specialise in defending against motoring related prosecutions based on dashcam 'evidence', particular footage taken by ordinary drivers and then submitted to the police? I am unaware that evidence in the form of dashcam/mobile phone imagery had to be of a “type approved” by the home office to be eligible for use in a prosecution, or restricted for use, therefore you will find there is no specific MR or MRS LOOPHOLE on this subject. The police use non-Home Office approved CCTV all the time, take the new BBC MET documentary the week before last where private CCTV cameras were used to track down a rapist. Imagine if the guy's lawyer could just say "Objection! The CCTV is not home-office approved so it, and everything that flows from it, is inadmissible!". -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 20:34
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 882 Joined: 7 Nov 2004 Member No.: 1,847 |
I think it would be very foolhardy to try to “get out of trouble” by attempting set up a case based on attacking the use of evidence captured in dashcam or mobile. With Deepfake becoming more well known even by Magistrates, I'd have thought it won't be long before any video/photo evidence can be refuted as a matter of course. It can't be hard to modify low quality dashcam footage. I'd expect moving to some sort of video format that checksums each frame on the fly, and securely stores the checksum somehow, the approval would be based on the security of the checksum encryption maybe. This post has been edited by facade: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 20:35 |
|
|
Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 22:15
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
With Deepfake becoming more well known even by Magistrates, I'd have thought it won't be long before any video/photo evidence can be refuted as a matter of course. It can't be hard to modify low quality dashcam footage. I'd expect moving to some sort of video format that checksums each frame on the fly, and securely stores the checksum somehow, the approval would be based on the security of the checksum encryption maybe. That isn't the point. There is no need for the device to incorporate any form of "approval" if it is not type approved (which is the thrust of this thread). If it is presented to court by (say) the prosecution and the defence doubts its authenticity it would be up to them to challenge it. They may insist on the person who made the images appearing to swear to their authenticity in court and be cross-examined as necessary. It would then be up to the court to decide just how authentic they believe the evidence is. No such evidence can be refuted "as a matter of course". |
|
|
Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 05:21
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Dashcam footage is only usually used to corroborate a witness testimony from the driver, it’s not usually the primary evidence.
As for manipulating it, the finished file can be interrogated for that, but unless they are trying to replace one car with another (with the risks that it can be proven the car wasn’t there) I can’t see it’s giant to help much. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 13:19
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I think it would be very foolhardy to try to “get out of trouble” by attempting set up a case based on attacking the use of evidence captured in dashcam or mobile. With Deepfake becoming more well known even by Magistrates, I'd have thought it won't be long before any video/photo evidence can be refuted as a matter of course. It can't be hard to modify low quality dashcam footage. Nothing is going to be "refuted as a matter of course", it's always been open to the defence to adduce evidence to show that some or all of the prosecution evidence has been fabricated, this is not new. I don't know what you mean by low quality, my dashcams record in 4k ultra high res. This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 13:20 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 12:29
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,705 Joined: 20 May 2004 From: Lincolnshire Member No.: 1,224 |
Hello, this is more of a general question rather than being in relation to a specific case, but are there any solicitors who specialise in defending against motoring related prosecutions based on dashcam 'evidence', particular footage taken by ordinary drivers and then submitted to the police? I am unaware that evidence in the form of dashcam/mobile phone imagery had to be of a “type approved” by the home office to be eligible for use in a prosecution, or restricted for use, therefore you will find there is no specific MR or MRS LOOPHOLE on this subject. The police use non-Home Office approved CCTV all the time, take the new BBC MET documentary the week before last where private CCTV cameras were used to track down a rapist. Imagine if the guy's lawyer could just say "Objection! The CCTV is not home-office approved so it, and everything that flows from it, is inadmissible!". There's a similar line that's trotted out on the Facebook dashcam sites - "Now you've posted that on here the police won't be able to use it as evidence". |
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 16:59
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
|
|
|
Tue, 5 Nov 2019 - 09:32
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
Any motoring solicitor - I’m not aware of any that specialise in dash cam footage specifically. When it comes to Court you stand up and say "can I please see the Home Office Type Approval document for the device in question?" If it is not a prescribed device then it doesn't fall into the type approval -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:41 |