« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Summary Justice Review Committee: REPORT TO MINISTERS
Chapter 23: EVIDENCE OBTAINED USING VIDEO TECHNOLOGY
23.1 It is technically possible for police officers to be fitted with a wearable video camera. Such a camera can record events as they happen but it can also record an image of the accused and conversations between a police officer and persons present at the scene of an incident. The cautioning and charging of a suspect could be recorded in this way. Such recordings can have the time of them incorporated into the recording itself.
23.2 If this technology is to be widely introduced, as we think it will be, provision must be made for that evidence to be used in court in a fair but cost effective way. The cautioning and charging of suspects and their replies to the charges is normally a matter of evidence for which either one or two police witnesses may be cited to attend court. The percentage of cases in which the cautioning and charging of a suspect is challenged is very small. The process of cautioning and charging suspects, where that process has been video recorded should be regarded as routine evidence which is open to challenge in the usual way. A copy of the video recording would have to be served on the accused in the usual way and if unchallenged could be played in the course of a trial. We would not envisage that it should be necessary for any police officers to give evidence in relation to a matter such as that where no challenge had been made.
23.3 If there were to be a video or audio recording of the event as it happened (e.g. on CCTV) that would normally be regarded as "best evidence" and played at the trial. Witnesses describing to police officers what they had seen happening a short time before might also be better evidence than the evidence of these witnesses based on recollection many weeks or possibly months later.
23.4 We recommend that, where there is CCTV evidence or other recorded evidence of events as they happened, it should be made possible to lead that evidence without it being necessary for a witness responsible for making, monitoring or obtaining the recording to attend court to speak to it, such as a police officer or a CCTV operator. A letter or certificate from the relevant organisation as to the provenance of the evidence should suffice.
23.5 We further recommend that video evidence of witness statements should be treated in the same way as signed witness statements in relation to the procedure for such evidence to be agreed as uncontroversial (see chapter 21 above). Where such evidence is either agreed to be uncontroversial, is unchallenged or the court so directs, it should be admissible evidence in the case. The Crown or the defence should be able to use that evidence without it being necessary for one or more witnesses to speak to the recording of it. It would still be open to the Crown and the defence to cite such witnesses to the trial where their oral testimony would also be admissible evidence.
23.6 It may be that with improved voice recognition software the transcription of at least parts of such recordings may not prove to be too expensive. If so, it may be possible and reasonably cost effective to prepare transcripts in some cases but we do not recommend that that be done routinely. If these recommendations are accepted we would envisage that at an intermediate diet the number of witnesses who are required to attend court for trials would be reduced in cases in which there are video or audio recordings. It is worth noting that use of technology such as this, while saving time at the beginning of the process, may add work at the trial preparation stage. A good example is the police interview tape - which may take longer for the procurator fiscal or judge to listen to than the time it would take to consider a transcript of the evidence. That said, there will be occasions on which the court may wish to use an appropriate video or audio recording. We would also suggest that it should be competent for video and audio taped evidence to become part of the process where appropriate. If recorded on digital media, it could be stored with an electronic complaint on the appropriate IT systems. With suitable technology, judges could mark relevant sections of the recording for the process as they watched or listened to it, without having to take extended notes.
We recommend that video recordings of the process of cautioning and charging suspects should be regarded as routine evidence.
We recommend that, where there is CCTV evidence or other recorded evidence of events as they happened, it should be made possible to lead that evidence without it being necessary for a witness responsible for making, monitoring or obtaining the recording to attend court to speak to it, such as a police officer or a CCTV operator. A letter or certificate from the relevant organisation as to the provenance of the evidence should suffice.
We recommend that video evidence of witness statements should be treated in the same way as signed witness statements in relation to the procedure for such evidence to be agreed as uncontroversial. Where such evidence is either agreed to be uncontroversial or the court so directs it should be admissible evidence in the case. The Crown or the defence should be able to use that evidence without it being necessary for one or more witnesses to speak to it.
« Previous | Contents | Next »