PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Requesting police bodycam footage
Colin_S
post Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 12:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,321



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 46)
Advertisement
post Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 12:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:29
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,328
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:27) *
If you want the footage then make an application to the police HQ quoting Data Protection Act 1998, section 35. £10


As easy as that?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:31
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:29) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:27) *
If you want the footage then make an application to the police HQ quoting Data Protection Act 1998, section 35. £10


As easy as that?



Is that a rhetorical question?

Its that easy.

1. Requests made under Section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998
(a) Section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 states that personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions whereby:

a disclosure is required by or under an enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court;
for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings) or the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purpose of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:37
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,328
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:31) *
Is that a rhetorical question?


Not at all, just a straightforward one...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:38
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,157
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:31) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:29) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:27) *
If you want the footage then make an application to the police HQ quoting Data Protection Act 1998, section 35. £10


As easy as that?



Is that a rhetorical question?

Its that easy.

1. Requests made under Section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998
(a) Section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 states that personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions whereby:

a disclosure is required by or under an enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court;
for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings) or the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purpose of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

You do realise that s 35 doesn’t make it mandatory for the data controller to release the data?

You also realise, I hope, that if it is the subject's own personal data then the application is made under s 7, not s 35.

Whilst most requests are dealt with by releasing a copy of the information requested, that’s not a requirement.


--------------------


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:51
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:38) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:31) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:29) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:27) *
If you want the footage then make an application to the police HQ quoting Data Protection Act 1998, section 35. £10


As easy as that?



Is that a rhetorical question?

Its that easy.

1. Requests made under Section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998
(a) Section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 states that personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions whereby:

a disclosure is required by or under an enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court;
for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings) or the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purpose of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

You do realise that s 35 doesn’t make it mandatory for the data controller to release the data?

You also realise, I hope, that if it is the subject's own personal data then the application is made under s 7, not s 35.

Whilst most requests are dealt with by releasing a copy of the information requested, that’s not a requirement.



Why is it not mandatory?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:54
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,157
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (4101 @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:51) *
Why is it not mandatory?

There are no words making it mandatory. All s 35 does is say that the non-disclosure provisions don’t apply. The non-disclosure provisions are defined in s 27(4). Nothing says "you must hand over the data" in s 35.


--------------------


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Colin_S
post Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 09:27
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,321



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 15:01) *
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.


As I mentioned above it appears the case management was conducted online. He filled in an online form including a brief outline of why he wanted the prosecution witnesses to attend with a few details of the elements of their statements he wanted to question.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 21:26) *
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.


We had also printed off copies of the CPS guide to what they define as use of a mobile phone ready to distribute as appropriate and to include in his summary. Not needed fortunately.

Besides one PC being double booked in 2 different courts the fact that both PC's shared the same surname possibly contributed to the non show of the second one. Oops!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 22nd June 2018 - 21:08
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.