This is the best summary I could come up with:
The roll-out of body-worn cameras, costing at least £90m over the past decade, was intended to benefit both victims and the police - protecting officers against malicious complaints and improving the quality of evidence collected.
The BBC was only able to obtain footage of an assault by an officer in Wolverhampton, for which he was given a custodial sentence, after attending his criminal trial, where it was shared under legal obligations to disclose evidence.
Forces tend to release footage to accompany news stories which show the results of successful operations or following prosecutions in major cases.
But in the UK, Merseyside Police has repeatedly refused to provide videos of two officers switching off their cameras during an incident where a man was punched five times - a decision supported by the Information Commissioner.
Separately, the tribunal also ruled against releasing videos showing a British Transport Police officer turning off his colleague’s camera on two occasions - one during a shift where he intentionally damaged a detained person’s phone, and another when a search for drugs was being carried out on a young man.
She said many senior police officers believe body-worn video exists almost to cover their backs: “The sooner they get their heads around the fact that it’s a tool that would help them build trust they’d be on to something - instead of hiding it.”
The original article contains 1,479 words, the summary contains 227 words. Saved 85%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Alexa@lemmy.one 1 year ago
Shouldn’t it be law at this stage that cameras that are switched off should be put down as guilty?
Syldon@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Depends how reliable the cameras are. This would open up guilty verdicts for simply having bad equipment. You also know for a fact that some are going to break through other means also. You still stuck trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.