Requesting police bodycam footage Options

[Colin_S]

Can anyone advise the correct procedure to obtain a copy of bodycam footage recorded whilst a police officer was conducting a traffic stop?

This relates to a stop and reporting for the use of a mobile device whilst driving. The driver was pinged by a spotter further up the road and then stopped, questioned and advised they would be reported for possible prosecution by a second officer at a roadside check point. They have since received the conditional offer and returned it submitting a not guilty plea and requesting that the bodycam footage be available for inspection prior to any court hearing. They now have the SJP paperwork which again will be returned with a not guilty plea and again with a request for the bodycam footage.

The reason for the request for the footage is that they are certain it will support their case.

Do they need to put in a subject data access request or will the police / CPS make the video available if requested as above in the return of the various forms?

[Advertisement]

[Colin_S]

Without viewing the video it's hard to predict exactly it's usefulness or otherwise however we believe it may support the defence as the accusation of the spotter, which was not advised at the time of the stop, was of scrolling the screen. The driver had not been doing this and, unaware of the accusation, went to lengths to explain how they would have used the hands free kit for calls and texts. Something they perhaps would not have done had they either been guilty of what the spotter believes they saw or had the full accusation been detailed at the time of the stop.

The aim is to create reasonable doubt and this will be a small part of that process.

[peterguk]

went to lengths to explain how they would have used the hands free kit for calls and texts.

As we all know, "using" a phone does not have to involve any calls or text messages.

[Churchmouse]

went to lengths to explain how they would have used the hands free kit for calls and texts.

As we all know, "using" a phone does not have to involve any calls or text messages.

Doesn't it (in theory) have to involve using the phone's "telecommunications functions", though? The Jimmy Carr defence.

--Churchmouse

[superSmiffy]

went to lengths to explain how they would have used the hands free kit for calls and texts.

As we all know, "using" a phone does not have to involve any calls or text messages.

Doesn't it (in theory) have to involve using the phone's "telecommunications functions", though? The Jimmy Carr defence.

--Churchmouse

No that was a cock-up by the magistrates and CPS when they accepted Nick Freeman’s suggestion that follows yours.

The description of what a hand-held mobile phone is from the regulation was conflated with the description of the offence of “using” a hand-held mobile telephone.

The Carr defence is a one-off. More creativity is now needed to confuse on this regulation.

This post has been edited by superSmiffy: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 - 13:08

[southpaw82]

Without viewing the video it's hard to predict exactly it's usefulness or otherwise however we believe it may support the defence as the accusation of the spotter, which was not advised at the time of the stop, was of scrolling the screen. The driver had not been doing this and, unaware of the accusation, went to lengths to explain how they would have used the hands free kit for calls and texts. Something they perhaps would not have done had they either been guilty of what the spotter believes they saw or had the full accusation been detailed at the time of the stop.

The aim is to create reasonable doubt and this will be a small part of that process.

How will it assist the defence? If you have to make an application for its disclosure you’re going to have to answer this question convincingly.

went to lengths to explain how they would have used the hands free kit for calls and texts.

As we all know, "using" a phone does not have to involve any calls or text messages.

Doesn't it (in theory) have to involve using the phone's "telecommunications functions", though? The Jimmy Carr defence.

--Churchmouse

No that was a cock-up by the magistrates and CPS when they accepted Nick Freeman’s suggestion that follows yours.

The description of what a hand-held mobile phone is from the regulation was conflated with the description of the offence of “using” a hand-held mobile telephone.

The Carr defence is a one-off. More creativity is now needed to confuse on this regulation.

Presumably you’re a Crown Prosecutor or otherwise qualified to make such an assertion? Otherwise it’s just some random person's opinion.

[Logician]

Actually the CPS now appear to support the Carr defence. The CPS guidance referenced earlier states this:

Use

There has been some debate about what use means.

A phone or device will be in use where it is making or receiving a call, or performing any other interactive communication function whether with another person or not.

The particular use to which the mobile phone must be put is not defined as an element of the offence. The prosecution must merely prove that the phone or the other device was hand held by the person at some point during its use at a time when the person was driving a vehicle on a road.

It therefore follows that the phone / device does not need to be seized before a prosecution can be brought.


The essence of the Carr defence was that he was not using his phone in an interactive communication function but as a recording device, which means that it was not in use as defined above.

[Churchmouse]

Thanks; that was what I had understood. However, I wouldn't suggest that relying on it in court would be easy. The offence now carries a heavy penalty and chancing it in court could prove very costly.

--Churchmouse

[cp8759]

Without viewing the video it's hard to predict exactly it's usefulness or otherwise however we believe it may support the defence as the accusation of the spotter, which was not advised at the time of the stop, was of scrolling the screen. The driver had not been doing this and, unaware of the accusation, went to lengths to explain how they would have used the hands free kit for calls and texts. Something they perhaps would not have done had they either been guilty of what the spotter believes they saw or had the full accusation been detailed at the time of the stop.

The aim is to create reasonable doubt and this will be a small part of that process.

How will it assist the defence? If you have to make an application for its disclosure you’re going to have to answer this question convincingly.

Well, once a not guilty plea is entered the prosecution will have to disclose it anyway under the CPIA, which is the likely outcome as I doubt the CPS will agree to drop the matter at the first hearing (at least based on what we have been told).

[southpaw82]

Well, once a not guilty plea is entered the prosecution will have to disclose it anyway under the CPIA, which is the likely outcome as I doubt the CPS will agree to drop the matter at the first hearing (at least based on what we have been told).

If it is evidence for the prosecution, or it assists the defence, or it undermines the prosecution.

[cp8759]

Well, once a not guilty plea is entered the prosecution will have to disclose it anyway under the CPIA, which is the likely outcome as I doubt the CPS will agree to drop the matter at the first hearing (at least based on what we have been told).

If it is evidence for the prosecution, or it assists the defence, or it undermines the prosecution.

It's not quite as definitive as that though, the requirement is for disclosure if the evidence "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused"; showing that the evidence might reasonably be considered capable of assisting the defence is quite different to showing that it actually does assist the defence. It is also arguable that, if the CPS has no public interest grounds to want to withhold the evidence (which is extremely unlikely in a road traffic prosecution), they should not oppose disclosure because asking the court to make a judicial determination regarding disclosure would, under the circumstances, not be consistent with "dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously".

[southpaw82]

Well, once a not guilty plea is entered the prosecution will have to disclose it anyway under the CPIA, which is the likely outcome as I doubt the CPS will agree to drop the matter at the first hearing (at least based on what we have been told).

If it is evidence for the prosecution, or it assists the defence, or it undermines the prosecution.

It's not quite as definitive as that though, the requirement is for disclosure if the evidence "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused"; showing that the evidence might reasonably be considered capable of assisting the defence is quite different to showing that it actually does assist the defence. It is also arguable that, if the CPS has no public interest grounds to want to withhold the evidence (which is extremely unlikely in a road traffic prosecution), they should not oppose disclosure because asking the court to make a judicial determination regarding disclosure would, under the circumstances, not be consistent with "dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously".

Have you ever acted as a disclosure officer or prosecuted/defended a criminal case?

[NewJudge]

We seem to be getting awfully bogged down with the intricacies of disclosure.

AIUI, before plea, the prosecution has a duty to disclose the following (as applicable) which makes up the Initial Details of the Prosecution Case:

- summary of prosecution
- interview summary
- available statements relevant to plea, allocation or sentence
- previous convictions
- victim personal statement

Only after a NG plea is there an obligation to disclose anything else. In the vast majority of cases on here (speeding/mobile phone/red light/careless) that’s usually all there is and further disclosure is not an issue because there is nothing further to disclose. In this case, why don’t we see what happens when the defendant asks for the bodycam footage. The chances are it will simply be served.

[cp8759]

Well, once a not guilty plea is entered the prosecution will have to disclose it anyway under the CPIA, which is the likely outcome as I doubt the CPS will agree to drop the matter at the first hearing (at least based on what we have been told).

If it is evidence for the prosecution, or it assists the defence, or it undermines the prosecution.

It's not quite as definitive as that though, the requirement is for disclosure if the evidence "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused"; showing that the evidence might reasonably be considered capable of assisting the defence is quite different to showing that it actually does assist the defence. It is also arguable that, if the CPS has no public interest grounds to want to withhold the evidence (which is extremely unlikely in a road traffic prosecution), they should not oppose disclosure because asking the court to make a judicial determination regarding disclosure would, under the circumstances, not be consistent with "dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously".

Have you ever acted as a disclosure officer or prosecuted/defended a criminal case?

Yes

We seem to be getting awfully bogged down with the intricacies of disclosure.

AIUI, before plea, the prosecution has a duty to disclose the following (as applicable) which makes up the Initial Details of the Prosecution Case:

- summary of prosecution
- interview summary
- available statements relevant to plea, allocation or sentence
- previous convictions
- victim personal statement

Only after a NG plea is there an obligation to disclose anything else. In the vast majority of cases on here (speeding/mobile phone/red light/careless) that’s usually all there is and further disclosure is not an issue because there is nothing further to disclose. In this case, why don’t we see what happens when the defendant asks for the bodycam footage. The chances are it will simply be served.

Agreed, I am struggling to see why it wouldn't be disclosed, and it would be "efficient and expeditious" to disclose it and get on with the case, as the OP indicates the intention is to fight the case, whether it is disclosed before or after plea is somewhat academic.

[Colin_S]

Thanks for all the replies. My original question has been answered. The NG plea has been submitted and a separate letter has been sent in requesting the video and some other information to the Police. One additional thing the footage may help with is showing the approximate speed of the vehicle as this detail has been omitted in any shape or form and would be useful for recreating the incident so as to ascertain how long the spotter could have realistically observed the alleged offence.

The crux of the defence will be to question the accuracy of what the spotter alleges they saw. The spotter's statement lends itself to a good cross examination that should be able to cast doubt on whether he was mistaken in what he believes he saw and whether he had sufficient time to even observe what he says he did. I will post more details on this at some future date, probably after the case goes to Court.

Thanks again.

[NewJudge]

Do not rely on your friend's letter being taken as the request for the footage. The NG plea will see the matter listed for a Case Management hearing in the normal magistrates' court which your friend should attend. There he can make his formal request for the disclosure (which he may be asked to put in writing to the CPS). He should have his request recorded on the Case Management paperwork retained by the court.

[baggins1234]

Also do not forget that you won’t be necessarily be examining the reaction time of the spotting officer to see something.

He or she will have been there specifically to observe for anticipated offences and as such there is a difference.

[Colin_S]

Some updates on this...

Do not rely on your friend's letter being taken as the request for the footage. The NG plea will see the matter listed for a Case Management hearing in the normal magistrates' court which your friend should attend. There he can make his formal request for the disclosure (which he may be asked to put in writing to the CPS). He should have his request recorded on the Case Management paperwork retained by the court.

If there was any case management it was done online when my friend submitted a response to the charge including that he wanted to cross examine both PC's. The first Court appearance was last week and that was for the trial.

By this point there had been 3 written requests for the bodycam footage from the officer that carried out the stop but the best we got was a response that the police were not submitting any video evidence to support their prosecution and a complete ignore of the fact he wanted it to assist in his defence. It looked like we would have to wait for the case to begin and request this footage and ask for an adjournment.

For those wondering why the footage was relevant, we wanted to prove a likely approximate speed for the vehicle to weaken what the spotter says he saw (a mobile phone being held at the 8 o'clock position on the steering wheel for approx. 3 seconds) We recreated this and proved that a phone held at that position would be visible for much less than a second at 20 mph and the location of the spot was on a road with a likely speed of 30. We also wanted to clarify what the spotter had radioed through about the colour of the phone. My friend recalls hearing the wrong colour stated but the spotter's evidence details the correct colour which suggests collusion in preparing his statement. We also wanted to examine his pocket book entry. Finally the stopping officer mentions my friend said he moved his phone, which omitted the words 'may have' which my friend is adamant he used.

The spotter also stated he saw the phone being scrolled but offered no evidence to confirm this such as illuminated screen or the like.

Anyways, fast forward to the hearing. We were called in and the fact that one of the officers was double booked at another court some 10 miles away and the whereabouts of the other officer was unknown was promptly raised. The CPS asked to adjourn but we requested it be dealt with on the day. The fact my friend had taken 2 nights off work to attend was mentioned. The case was temporarily adjourned whilst calls were made to see if the PC's were able to attend later in the day and we were called back in a couple of hours later for the CPS to offer no evidence so that was that. A win's a win however it's achieved.

On a worrying note, a brief conversation with the bench afterwards suggested they truly believed that simply holding a phone was good enough for the offence. A point we were well prepared to cover if the case did actually run it's full course.

This post has been edited by Colin_S: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 13:39

[NewJudge]

A good result, albeit in a somewhat unsatisfactory manner. Thanks for letting us know.

Your remarks about the case management hearing (or lack of it) is a little worrying. It should not have been held in your friend's absence as it is his opportunity to state the basis of his defence as well as have recorded any requests he might make such as the footage). The fact that the prosecution were not relying on it is not the issue. If it assist the defence of undermines the prosecution it should be disclosed. Having said that, it seems getting hold of bodycam footage seems to be a major logistical exercise in many areas. Anyway (in this instance, at least) no matter.

[notmeatloaf]

It is best not to worry too much about the legal knowledge of the magistrates, although many are well versed they receive legal direction before making a decision and thus, at least in theory, deliver an informed verdict.

The witness booking system for courts is deeply unsatisfactory. Bearing in mind many witnesses are busy people giving up their time it was quite normal to turn up and wait around for hours, or find that someone had the wrong date and you'd wasted your time. The attitude seems to be that the court's time is very valuable and everyone else should fit their day(s) around it. Glad I don't have to do it any more, albeit in this instance it gave you a slightly hollow victory.

Hopefully a lesson learnt for your friend to put the phone somewhere convenient before you set off, which will avoid a lot of hassle and lost wages.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:27

[4101]

Some updates on this...

Do not rely on your friend's letter being taken as the request for the footage. The NG plea will see the matter listed for a Case Management hearing in the normal magistrates' court which your friend should attend. There he can make his formal request for the disclosure (which he may be asked to put in writing to the CPS). He should have his request recorded on the Case Management paperwork retained by the court.

If there was any case management it was done online when my friend submitted a response to the charge including that he wanted to cross examine both PC's. The first Court appearance was last week and that was for the trial.

By this point there had been 3 written requests for the bodycam footage from the officer that carried out the stop but the best we got was a response that the police were not submitting any video evidence to support their prosecution and a complete ignore of the fact he wanted it to assist in his defence. It looked like we would have to wait for the case to begin and request this footage and ask for an adjournment.

For those wondering why the footage was relevant, we wanted to prove a likely approximate speed for the vehicle to weaken what the spotter says he saw (a mobile phone being held at the 8 o'clock position on the steering wheel for approx. 3 seconds) We recreated this and proved that a phone held at that position would be visible for much less than a second at 20 mph and the location of the spot was on a road with a likely speed of 30. We also wanted to clarify what the spotter had radioed through about the colour of the phone. My friend recalls hearing the wrong colour stated but the spotter's evidence details the correct colour which suggests collusion in preparing his statement. We also wanted to examine his pocket book entry. Finally the stopping officer mentions my friend said he moved his phone, which omitted the words 'may have' which my friend is adamant he used.

The spotter also stated he saw the phone being scrolled but offered no evidence to confirm this such as illuminated screen or the like.

Anyways, fast forward to the hearing. We were called in and the fact that one of the officers was double booked at another court some 10 miles away and the whereabouts of the other officer was unknown was promptly raised. The CPS asked to adjourn but we requested it be dealt with on the day. The fact my friend had taken 2 nights off work to attend was mentioned. The case was temporarily adjourned whilst calls were made to see if the PC's were able to attend later in the day and we were called back in a couple of hours later for the CPS to offer no evidence so that was that. A win's a win however it's achieved.

On a worrying note, a brief conversation with the bench afterwards suggested they truly believed that simply holding a phone was good enough for the offence. A point we were well prepared to cover if the case did actually run it's full course.

If you want the footage then make an application to the police HQ quoting Data Protection Act 1998, section 35. £10