Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Personnel banned from re-watching body worn video footage.

Michael Lockwood

Date - 15th October 2018
By - Sophie Garrod - Police Oracle

1 Comment

 

The police watchdog has drawn up new post-incident procedure guidelines.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct’s new documents state its “preference” is to ensure police witnesses are separated once it is safe to do so until they have provided an initial account.

If this is not possible it says other steps must be taken such as using body worn video (BWV) to record them from the scene until they are interviewed by an investigator.

Officers will also be prohibited from watching back BWV footage of the incident in case it “consciously or unconsciously” effects their recollection.

The National Police Chiefs' Council accepts the guidelines, which await Home Office sign-off.

But the Police Federation of England and Wales has expressed concern over the rules which update a previous version submitted by the IOPC’s predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and was met by strong opposition from within the service.

Chairman John Apter, is worried about how the regulations will be interpreted by the watchdog’s investigators.

He said: “This is an emotive issue for our members, who may have been through an extremely traumatic event where a member of the public has died.

“It is an area that we will be watching closely to ensure that officers are treated fairly and not made to feel like suspects rather than the witnesses they invariably are.”

The Fed also takes issue with aspects concerning officer anonymity, particularly if IOPC staff are in possession of personal details, as is suggested in the guidance.

Mr Apter said: “If this information were released, it would massively impact officers and their families and wreck any trust in the IOPC from our members. There are still also unanswered questions on the ability of officers to view their body worn video, and the speed and extent of initial accounts expected from officers.

“However the Federation is committed to working with the IOPC to ensure that any Death or Serious Injury investigation gets the level of co-operation and information needed to properly satisfy public scrutiny whilst affording the appropriate protections to all parties.”

He said that the success of co-operative working would be largely dependent on the IOPC ensuring their investigators received the appropriate training, adding: “Any death following police contact is a tragic incident and it is only right that when these tragedies occur they are properly investigated.

“All we ask is for our members to be treated fairly during the process of any subsequent investigation, rather than our previous experience of investigators trying to find fault and someone to blame.”

A National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesman said: “The guidelines have gone through careful consultation and we are comfortable they now strike the right balance.”

IOPC director general Michael Lockwood said: “When a person dies or is seriously injured after contact with the police, it poses a challenge to public confidence in policing; so it’s vital that investigations into such incidents are transparent and meaningful.

“The public need to know that the police officers involved are providing their witness statements independently of their colleagues. One way to achieve that is to separate officers after an incident has taken place – and that’s our preference.

“The most important thing is that we’re able to gather the evidence we need quickly, while reassuring the public that the process for doing so is transparent and honest.”

View On Police Oracle

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

Firstly. They need to prove that watching BWV in any way negatively or unfairly affects the way officers recollect an event. Otherwise they are making a claim without any basis other than prejudice. So where is the evidence to suggest this is actually the case?

[Beaker 817]

We split witnesses up don’t we so they don’t compare notes? What is the difference really?

[HazRat 762]

And they’d never trip you up over the difference between what is written and what is recorded on your BWV. No the IOPC would never do that.

Edited October 16, 2018 by HazRat

[Chaos + 151]

We split witnesses up don’t we so they don’t compare notes? What is the difference really?

Yes we do, as it's good practice... But if witnesses want to talk about the incident with other witnesses we have no power to stop them.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

There are stated cases that say that Police Officers can consult and that they can refer to note books and anything else to prepare their evidence. The onus is that it is correct.

[mike88 + 257]

I thought BWV was here to help us record best evidence not be used as a tool to catch officers out by withholding our own footage from us.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

I do not believe that any enquiry could stop you from referring to your pocket book if they were contemporaneous notes made at the time. How then could they deny you referring to a BWV when that would be about as contemporaneous mas anything could possibly get.

I am wondering if they have ever considered "Waterboarding" as a means of interrogation.

[HazRat 762]

I get why they don’t want to you view BWV prior to writing a statement as they want to know what you actually saw, rather than what the video saw and you subsequently wrote about.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

Perhaps the BWV is more accurate than any recollection. Why be afraid of reality. The only doubts should be what happened immediately prior to, and after the recording.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Zulu 22

[bensonby + 3,503]

What I don’t get is the immediate assumption that officers have done something wrong and/or want to behave inappropriately immediately following an incident. 

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

I remember when we were first issued BWV and there were officers stating that this particular premise was why they didn't want to wear it. There were of course some chortling from the trainers around this issue as they affirmed that it was there as an extra tool for us and would reduce the amount of conflict we'd face, that is definitely wasn't something to worry about or as a way of tripping us up.. and then we have this bright idea from the new complaints department. I am now beginning to wonder if those officers were right?

 

Could you imagine if we had victims of crime coming to us with video footage of their attackers and then we turned around and asked "Oh. You've already watched the footage yourself? Sorry. We can't use that now and we won't be taking a statement from you. However.. it does show you swore at the offender whilst he was hitting you so we might consider public order offences against you. We'll let you know in due course. Yes. About 7 years time should be enough."

 

 

[Radman + 2,163]

I remember when we were first issued BWV and there were officers stating that this particular premise was why they didn't want to wear it. There were of course some chortling from the trainers around this issue as they affirmed that it was there as an extra tool for us and would reduce the amount of conflict we'd face, that is definitely wasn't something to worry about or as a way of tripping us up.. and then we have this bright idea from the new complaints department. I am now beginning to wonder if those officers were right?
 
Could you imagine if we had victims of crime coming to us with video footage of their attackers and then we turned around and asked "Oh. You've already watched the footage yourself? Sorry. We can't use that now and we won't be taking a statement from you. However.. it does show you swore at the offender whilst he was hitting you so we might consider public order offences against you. We'll let you know in due course. Yes. About 7 years time should be enough."
 
 

I said this to the trainers more in regards to procedural errors cops may get wrong in the heat of the moment being jumped on with appeals and cases being thrown out of court etc leading on to disciplinary actions.

I was told "Well the cameras aren't there for that they're there to protect you."

Right but that didn't answer my point did it?

As far as I can see they're a management tool as much as they are to 'protect' you. If you screw up on camera in a way which goes against a SOP or Policy or just offends a particular line manager who so happens to have a disliking to you and decides to interpret footage or witch hunt a cop you can expect the footage to be used against you. PSD in our force now expect you to have BWV for more or less any incident you attend, if you didn't activate it or put it on or left it in the charging dock you'll be seriously questioned why you didn't have the footage on and will likely be disciplined for not having it with you...

I don't like them, I think it errodes the trust between the public and police and can even escalate situations unnecessarily at times - the newer recruits who are so robotic with the public "You are being video and audio recorded" mantra when turning up to a scene and speaking to people is unnatural and jarring to watch...

The human side to bobbying is being eroded away ever so slowly.

[Radman + 2,163]

I remember when we were first issued BWV and there were officers stating that this particular premise was why they didn't want to wear it. There were of course some chortling from the trainers around this issue as they affirmed that it was there as an extra tool for us and would reduce the amount of conflict we'd face, that is definitely wasn't something to worry about or as a way of tripping us up.. and then we have this bright idea from the new complaints department. I am now beginning to wonder if those officers were right?
 
Could you imagine if we had victims of crime coming to us with video footage of their attackers and then we turned around and asked "Oh. You've already watched the footage yourself? Sorry. We can't use that now and we won't be taking a statement from you. However.. it does show you swore at the offender whilst he was hitting you so we might consider public order offences against you. We'll let you know in due course. Yes. About 7 years time should be enough."
 
 

I said this to the trainers more in regards to procedural errors cops may get wrong in the heat of the moment being jumped on with appeals and cases being thrown out of court etc leading on to disciplinary actions.

I was told "Well the cameras aren't there for that they're there to protect you."

Right but that didn't answer my point did it?

As far as I can see they're a management tool as much as they are to 'protect' you. If you screw up on camera in a way which goes against a SOP or Policy or just offends a particular line manager who so happens to have a disliking to you and decides to interpret footage or witch hunt a cop you can expect the footage to be used against you. PSD in our force now expect you to have BWV for more or less any incident you attend, if you didn't activate it or put it on or left it in the charging dock you'll be seriously questioned why you didn't have the footage on and will likely be disciplined for not having it with you...

I don't like them, I think it errodes the trust between the public and police and can even escalate situations unnecessarily at times - the newer recruits who are so robotic with the public "You are being video and audio recorded" mantra when turning up to a scene and speaking to people is unnatural and jarring to watch...

The human side to bobbying is being eroded away ever so slowly.

[HazRat 762]

4 hours ago, obsidian_eclipse said:

Could you imagine if we had victims of crime coming to us with video footage of their attackers and then we turned around and asked "Oh. You've already watched the footage yourself? Sorry. We can't use that now and we won't be taking a statement from you. However.. it does show you swore at the offender whilst he was hitting you so we might consider public order offences against you. We'll let you know in due course. Yes. About 7 years time should be enough."

I’d argue that that should be clarified in the statement, although I appreciate that it probably gets glossed over.

3 hours ago, Radman said:

PSD in our force now expect you to have BWV for more or less any incident you attend, if you didn't activate it or put it on or left it in the charging dock you'll be seriously questioned why you didn't have the footage on and will likely be disciplined for not having it with you...

I would say that is the standard stick to beat staff with. We have exactly the same and supervisors are required to dip sample footage.