Video evidence - Pros and cons

[rastuscat]

It's been bandied around a bit on various posts, it's time I put a different view forward.

In 2007 we set up a group called the Intersection Safety Team. It was set up to deal with the intersection crashes in Christchurch, as far as could be done. I had 10 staff, including the 3 full time bike riders, plus various others.

We'd identify a set of traffic lights where crashes had become too frequent, and stake them out. They were run as spot'n'stop operations, where I would be in jeans and t-shirts, and would detect an offence. I'd radio the troops, and they would stop the driver further down the road, and write the ticket.

We originally set up by videoing each set of lights, but the constraints became really obvious really quickly. I can stand there and look for seatbelt offences, cellphones, shit boxes etc, all the camera does is what it's pointed at. After a while we just gave up on using the cameras (digital video tapes, old school), just because they were only catching a very small percentage of our offences, and weren't worth the trouble of setting them up, and storing all the data.

Regarding offences where we didn't stop the vehicle but the offence was caught on tape, those offences generate around 8 hours of administration from 1 hour of filming, so aren't terribly time effective either. Those are Section 118 offences.

There's a danger that when cameras become more common, the courts will start to expect footage. I see, say, Skoober Steve riding down the road with no helmet on. It's his head, his risk blah blah blah. If I just turn up in court and the courts expect a video, and I don't have it, would that mean he didn't do it? Any cop turning up without a video would be seen as a risky conviction. Whether the person accused did it or not.

There truly is a perception that's it's easy to video the offences we see, when in fact it's a very dynamic environment in which we operate, and as yet, I can't see a way to video every angle of everything I need to prove a case.

Re the balance of evidence, the courts often consider that the officer has little motivation to distort the truth, whereas the person accused often has a significant motivation to do so. That tends to swing the courts favout in the direction of the prosecution. I've also been in court and given evidence as to what I have seen, and had the JPs dismiss charges that I know bloody well are correct. And the smirking accused who gloats his way out of court, having escaped the charge when he knows damn well he did it, doesn't help.

Just some thoughts. I reckon cameras will come, but I don't think they are there yet.

[Akzle]

ftp. that is all.

[oldiebutagoody]

Two opposing schools of philosophical thought come to mind when I consider Policing: (coming from a Police family, but being a confirmed biker)

A) Its not illegal if you don't get caught.

or..........

B) Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not caught them yet.


Both are patently inappropriate, and very commonly held opinions in the two respective camps of drivers and enforcement.

The moment you abandon the personalised/community based approach to Policing/enforcement, you lose the support and co-operation of the general public, who feel set up and spied upon. Unfortunately I agree video technology will be in place all too soon. Maybe I am still living in a friendlier world where Police would give directions, give school talks, kick a local teenagers butt and tell em not to do it again while being watched.

Not anti police at all. I am anti Police-state. My Father chatted to me about the progress to Police state, and predicted it was heading this way back in 1977 when he had to institute "shadow patrols" of local bikie gangs riding through his police district.

[Scuba_Steve]

Video should accompany a cop not be instead of I don't expect or want a stationary camera setup.
If some form of evidence can't be provided then why do you think it acceptable to charge someone??? especially for frivolous legislation like traffic.
Cameras nowadays are small, light, detailed, have wide view angle (120-170) & can easily be head or chest mounted. The UK & LA has started using them among others & as mentioned in other thread LA's seen an 80% drop in cop complaints since using them.

Lets pretend the legal system actually obeyed it's own rules for a moment... Would you find it acceptable if I got them to steal money from you [the person not the cop] for something I never proved you guilty of (& probably couldn't) & the only way to possibly (but not likely) avoid this theft is to take time off work (which would probably alone lose you more $$$) to prove you innocence beyond reasonable doubt at your own cost, which even if you could still would be unlikely to help you & still see you lose; seriously would you find this acceptable???

[BMWST?]

Video should accompany a cop not be instead of I don't expect or want a stationary camera setup.
If some form of evidence can't be provided then why do you think it acceptable to charge someone??? especially for frivolous legislation like traffic.
Cameras nowadays are small, light, detailed, have wide view angle (120-170) & can easily be head or chest mounted. The UK & LA has started using them among others & as mentioned in other thread LA's seen an 80% drop in cop complaints since using them.

Lets pretend the legal system actually obeyed it's own rules for a moment... Would you find it acceptable if I got them to steal money from you [the person not the cop] for something I never proved you guilty of (& probably couldn't) & the only way to possibly (but not likely) avoid this theft is to take time off work (which would probably alone lose you more $$$) to prove you innocence beyond reasonable doubt at your own cost, which even if you could still would be unlikely to help you & still see you lose; seriously would you find this acceptable???


one persons word against another is basis for court deliberations.Of course some form of indisputable evidence will always be preferred.If you demand video evidence for every police traffic prosecution will that be the thin end of the wedge,where the only form of evidence accepeted for a burglary will be a cctv video?

[scumdog]

one persons word against another is basis for court deliberations.Of course some form of indisputable evidence will always be preferred.If you demand video evidence for every police traffic prosecution will that be the thin end of the wedge,where the only form of evidence accepeted for a burglary will be a cctv video?

And where would it stop - would all witnesses and defendants be required to produce video 'evidence' too?

[Akzle]

Cameras nowadays are small, light, detailed, have wide view angle (120-170) & can easily be head or chest mounted.

gopro are gay as shit and watching anything filmed on them gives me a headache.

[Akzle]

where the only form of evidence accepeted for a burglary will be a cctv video?

:laugh::laugh:

like the police every actually prosecute for that.

police: fucken effective for the last century.

[Scuba_Steve]

one persons word against another is basis for court deliberations.Of course some form of indisputable evidence will always be preferred.If you demand video evidence for every police traffic prosecution will that be the thin end of the wedge,where the only form of evidence accepeted for a burglary will be a cctv video?

For theft (if they can bothered doing something) they will take evidence such as fingerprints, & photos.
It's not too much to ask for something beyond "cause I said so" else why even bother with the radar??? (which you have to question why they don't record what they're aiming at in the 1st place)

[rastuscat]

It's be interesting. Like, when the JPs asked you to provide video of yourself not committing the offence at the time the Popo says you did.

[rastuscat]

Cameras are getting better. One day they might be the answer, just not now.

[pete376403]

Isn't the onus on the prosecution, ie innocent until proven guilty? Except in traffic offenses, where you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.

[Scuba_Steve]

It's be interesting. Like, when the JPs asked you to provide video of yourself not committing the offence at the time the Popo says you did.

but the onus of proof shouldn't be (& legally isn't) on the defence. If the accuser can't provide evidence exceeding the evidence of defence then an innocent verdict should be passed it's that simple. No other civilian or gang could get away with taking other peoples money via the legal system without providing some sort of evidence of an offence having been committed

[scumdog]

No other civilian or gang could get away with taking other peoples money via the legal system without providing some sort of evidence of an offence having been committed

Eat your heart out!:bleh:

[rastuscat]

but the onus of proof shouldn't be (& legally isn't) on the defence. If the accuser can't provide evidence exceeding the evidence of defence then an innocent verdict should be passed it's that simple. No other civilian or gang could get away with taking other peoples money via the legal system without providing some sort of evidence of an offence having been committed

Therein lies the key.

Sworn oral testimony is evidence. It's just a fact of law.

Most people who defend themselves just want to make an "I'm innocent" speech, instead of giving sworn testimony. The JPs take account of that, and give more weight to the sworn evidence of the cop.

Of course, most people who do give sworn evidence get made to look silly by any half educated prosecutor, but that's the risk you take.

As I might add, do some cops who are so arrogant they get into the box expecting to just turn up and win.

[Big Dog]

ftp. that is all.

Yep, most modern cameras can live FTP the footage to a common store but the data charges are horrendous.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

gopro are gay as shit and watching anything filmed on them gives me a headache.

What happened to "that is all"!


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

It's be interesting. Like, when the JPs asked you to provide video of yourself not committing the offence at the time the Popo says you did.

That would be an alibi.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[scumdog]

Yep, most modern cameras can live FTP the footage to a common store but the data charges are horrendous.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Yep, as I said before, the costs are a big reason that the 5-0 haven't got cameras yet.

[Big Dog]

http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/paulhenry/interviews/police-association-on-body-cameras-bring-it-on. I have seen a cop wearing one in Henderson or New Lynn.

They are starting to proliferate but there are still questions.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

Therein lies the key.

Sworn oral testimony is evidence. It's just a fact of law.

Most people who defend themselves just want to make an "I'm innocent" speech, instead of giving sworn testimony. The JPs take account of that, and give more weight to the sworn evidence of the cop.

Of course, most people who do give sworn evidence get made to look silly by any half educated prosecutor, but that's the risk you take.

As I might add, do some cops who are so arrogant they get into the box expecting to just turn up and win.

With any physical evidence there are chain of custody questions.

Another technical issue to overcome. Once upon a time it was said the camera never lies, people do.
Now you can "photoshop" live feeds.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[AllanB]

I'm not comfortable with the video the shit out of everything life we are heading towards. Strongly dislike the Google glasses concept - some Cu#t recording me having a coffee, or picking my nose.

But what's the worst I get up to? Pop a wheelie maybe - spin the rear tyres on the XR6 occasionally.


Red light running in Christchurch is horrific - on Monday night Mrs B was abused by the driver behind her for stopping at the lights! Fucking agro CHCH people.

[Akzle]

Monday night Mrs B was abused by the driver behind her for stopping at the lights! Fucking agro CHCH people.

that city should be flattened!
:innocent:

[Jin]

Interesting question. I think you need to question the basis of issuing fines in the first place. Yes they can be a deterrent. But is it really necessary to ensure that someone pays a cost for breaches of traffic laws? Some police can be zealous in issuing money orders and it has no relation to traffic safety. In some cases its just an observation that some citizen broke the rules therefore they should pay a price.

Cameras are important to firstly protect citizens from the police. And to have evidence of a crime being committed. A real crime. Not someone going 5km over the speed limit.

[Scuba_Steve]

Red light running in Christchurch is horrific - on Monday night Mrs B was abused by the driver behind her for stopping at the lights! Fucking agro CHCH people.

Intersections in chch are horrific - there's more than a few light controlled intersections where the only way through since they retarded the giveway rule is to run a red

[rastuscat]

Interesting question. I think you need to question the basis of issuing fines in the first place. Yes they can be a deterrent. But is it really necessary to ensure that someone pays a cost for breaches of traffic laws? Some police can be zealous in issuing money orders and it has no relation to traffic safety. In some cases its just an observation that some citizen broke the rules therefore they should pay a price.

Cameras are important to firstly protect citizens from the police. And to have evidence of a crime being committed. A real crime. Not someone going 5km over the speed limit.

It's about effective behaviour change, and providing an incentive for someone not to commit potentially trauma promoting infringements.

If I could put a pill in the water which caused everyone to wear their seatbelts, that'd be cool. In the meantime, all we have is tickets. Not even any demerits.

What disincentive would you suggest? Suggest something practical though. I can suggest a few that might not be legal, but would sure work. E.g. smashing the cellphones of anyone we find using them.

[nzspokes]

E.g. smashing the cellphones of anyone we find using them.

Oh fuck yes.

Facebook doesnt need the update about the bad motorcyclist that gave you the finger because you were fucking about with a cell phone and almost hit him.

[Akzle]

It's about effective behaviour change, and providing an incentive for someone not to commit potentially trauma promoting infringements.
:laugh: oh yes. effective since..... when did we ditch the mot again??

:killingme.


If I could put a pill in the water which caused everyone to wear their seatbelts, that'd be cool. In the meantime, all we have is tickets. Not even any demerits.
okay, so, i have no license, a warrant for my arrest, still drive with no seatbelt, aaaaaaand... nothing. actually. i don't drive in to shit.
fuck away with your hitler shit. why not
"if we could put a pill in the water to which caused everyone TO NOT FUCKING DRIVE INTO SHIT"
huh? surely a better solution?


What disincentive would you suggest? Suggest something practical though. I can suggest a few that might not be legal, but would sure work. E.g. smashing the cellphones of anyone we find using them.
only IF, some other breach of etiquette.
i text all the time, bitches love textin (and i love bitches). i be textin my ass off. matter of fact my weed man dont like to be on the phone a whole lot so i text him.

txting while driving ISNT dangerous.
txting while looking for cops, while driving is.

disincentive? like any of your shit has changed any of anyone's behaviour? ever?
shirley if "the law" worked, crime would be all finished now?

[R650R]

No offence to you Rastus and your colleagues but this is one underlying attitude you see, hear and overhear from cops at times; that it's too much effort/hours to catch offender X and that the courts will likely throw it out.
Police say they are not into revenue gathering but still base their efforts on time invested vs results. Look at New York, the turn around when they went into zero tolerance mode, it worked in long run.
Can you imagine paramedic so fire operating the same way, oh that crash sounded bad, they'll all be gonners we wont bother going or fire rocking up and yep that house is toast wont bother trying to save the other half.

Soon our smartphones will be the GPS guided policeman in our pocket anyway, and that will be a bitter pill to swallow, your technogadget auto deducting fines from your account as you speed to work.

Back to main topic, I agree video is cumbersome to manage. There are many smartphone photo apps now though that can trigger filming based on sound or vibration, you could just shout 'offender' at right moment and get short clip. I don't think you need to worry about courts demanding video, they are still accepting good ol fashioned evidence in other crime areas where shop or street cctv could be available.
One thing I'd like to see is these self appointed citizen dash cam heroes hand over all their footage of their driving, not just the select clips that makes the news....

Given the appetite for Police reality TV shows these days there is also the option to sub contract the filming. That would eliminate the paperwork for you, just issue the ION and if the offender disputes it you call up the cameraman as an independent witness in court, which being a professional videographer would be bulletproof.

[Erelyes]

gopro are gay as shit and watching anything filmed on them gives me a headache.

Youtube has this 'camera shake fix' thing you can tick when you upload a video. It basically does some post-processing to try and make people sensitive to motion sickness hurl as quickly as possible. Whomever decided it was a good idea can eat a buffet of dicks.


Except in traffic offenses, where you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.

*buzzer* wrong. You are not 'guilty until proven innocent', you are 'charged with an alleged offence until proven innocent'. Just like any. other. offence. The only difference is, you don't have to go to court to plead guilty and be sentenced, you can just pay the fixed fine and move along. Or you can deny the offence and have your day in court just like anything else.

[Scuba_Steve]

*buzzer* wrong. You are not 'guilty until proven innocent', you are 'charged with an alleged offence until proven innocent'. Just like any. other. offence. The only difference is, you don't have to go to court to plead guilty and be sentenced, you can just pay the fixed fine and move along. Or you can deny the offence and have your day in court just like anything else.

Wow you REALLY don't have any idea how it works then. While you maybe correct as per "letter of the law" you are incorrect as per reality of the legal system

[Erelyes]

While you maybe correct as per "letter of the law" you are incorrect as per reality of the legal system

:killingme

You should try that one in front of a judge. :bash:

[rastuscat]

Lets clarify.

A ticket is the officers allegation that you've broken the rules.

You can plead guilty by paying the fine, or plead not guilty by asking for a hearing in front of the JPs.

Until you pay the fine or are ordered to pay by a JP, you are presumed to be innocent.

It's the system.

[nodrog]

Its still won't be good enough.

Some jumped up little tardlett will just say its computer shopped.

[Scuba_Steve]

Lets clarify.

A ticket is the officers allegation that you've broken the rules.

You can plead guilty by paying the fine, or plead not guilty by asking for a hearing in front of the JPs.

Until you pay the fine or are ordered to pay by a JP, you are presumed to be innocent.

It's the system.

So to do nothing is to be presumed innocent... yet they'll steal your money anyways meaning in reality you were presumed guilty, the fact the accused has the onus of proving their innocence & that they have to arrange for the chance to do this confirms they are presumed guilty until proven innocence in reality

It's the system, but not the law

[nodrog]

So to do nothing is to be presumed innocent... yet they'll steal your money anyways meaning in reality you were presumed guilty, the fact the accused has the onus of proving their innocence & that they have to arrange for the chance to do this confirms they are presumed guilty until proven innocence in reality

It's the system, but not the law

They aren't presuming you are guilty, they have evidence (however they have obtained it).

It is up to you to provide better evidence than theirs.

[TheDemonLord]

They aren't presuming you are guilty, they have evidence (however they have obtained it).

It is up to you to provide better evidence than theirs.

If their evidence is their word, its not Evidence

[nodrog]

If their evidence is their word, its not Evidence

Apart from the fact the Law says it is.

[TheDemonLord]

Apart from the fact the Law says it is.

And this is wrong - An officer is human, Humans make mistakes, can be affected by emotional states, can act inappropriately etc.

A Measurement from a radar gun is objective - the Radar gun never gets tired, isn't affected by judgement and will yeild the same result (all other factors being equal) regardless of who pulls the trigger

[nodrog]

And this is wrong - An officer is human, Humans make mistakes, can be affected by emotional states, can act inappropriately etc.

A Measurement from a radar gun is objective - the Radar gun never gets tired, isn't affected by judgement and will yeild the same result (all other factors being equal) regardless of who pulls the trigger

Well change It then.

At the moment it is the law, no amount of " its not fair " is going to help.

[Scuba_Steve]

Well change It then.

At the moment it is the law, no amount of " its not fair " is going to help.

It's NOT the law you daft git, the law states quite fucking clearly you are NOT guilty until proven so in a court of law... Someone writing something on a piece of paper is NOT proof of guilt it is nothing more than an accusation under the letter of law... learn some legislation!

[TheDemonLord]

It's NOT the law you daft git, the law states quite fucking clearly you are NOT guilty until proven so in a court of law... Someone writing something on a piece of paper is NOT proof of guilt it is nothing more than an accusation under the letter of law... learn some legislation!

I will admit I don't know if it is specified in legislation or not - however I am certain that it is contrary to the principles that Western Law was founded on.

[nodrog]

It's NOT the law you daft git, the law states quite fucking clearly you are NOT guilty until proven so in a court of law... Someone writing something on a piece of paper is NOT proof of guilt it is nothing more than an accusation under the letter of law... learn some legislation!

Do you have the bends?

The law states that an officers sworn testimony is legally admissible as evidence. So if an officer says you are guilty, and you cannot provide better evidence stating otherwise, according to the law you are guilty.

its the way it is.

#Retards

[TheDemonLord]

The law states that an officers sworn testimony is legally admissible as evidence. So if an officer says you are guilty, and you cannot provide better evidence stating otherwise, according to the law you are guilty.


Can you refer me to the particular section of legislation that says that?

[nodrog]

Can you refer me to the particular section of legislation that says that?

Yes.

but I'm not going to.

cos I don't care if anybody believes me.

[Scuba_Steve]

Do you have the bends?

The law states that an officers sworn testimony is legally admissible as evidence. So if an officer says you are guilty, and you cannot provide better evidence stating otherwise, according to the law you are guilty.

its the way it is.

#Retards

officers sworn testimony... like the one presented in a court of law, that sort of sworn testimony which a civilian can also give as noted by RC a bit back
And what piece of legislation would this be found in, I'll go find it myself

[Big Dog]

So to do nothing is to be presumed innocent... yet they'll steal your money anyways meaning in reality you were presumed guilty, the fact the accused has the onus of proving their innocence & that they have to arrange for the chance to do this confirms they are presumed guilty until proven innocence in reality

It's the system, but not the law

The spiel on the back of the ticket says something along the lines of failing to object within a suitable time frame is considered an admission, failure to pay during the same ( or confess) timeframe may lead to additional costs.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Gadget1]

Do you have the bends?

The law states that an officers sworn testimony is legally admissible as evidence. So if an officer says you are guilty, and you cannot provide better evidence stating otherwise, according to the law you are guilty.

its the way it is.

#Retards


Yes it is admissible as evidence, just as the accused provides evidence (Scuba Steve is correct). However, the Judge or JP decides if the accused is guilty not the police.

[nodrog]

Yes it is admissible as evidence, just as the accused provides evidence (Scuba Steve is correct). However, the Judge or JP decides if the accused is guilty not the police.

No shit.

but how do you think that conversation is going to go?

Officer "I saw the offender breaking the law"

Dumbass "I don't think thats very fair"

Judge "FFS, Roffle cakes"

[Gadget1]

No shit.

but how do you think that conversation is going to go?

Officer "I saw the offender breaking the law"

Dumbass "I don't think thats very fair"

Judge "FFS, Roffle cakes"




No, here's an example of how the process works, unlike in your motarded world:https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/files/vla-resource-dl-minor-traffic-running-red-light.pdf

Notice how certain words are used, like "This means the police think that you..." etc.

[nodrog]

[R RATED][/R RATED]
No, here's an example of how the process works, unlike in your motarded world:https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/files/vla-resource-dl-minor-traffic-running-red-light.pdf

Notice how certain words are used, like "This means the police think that you..." etc.

You fucken spastic, I'm referring to the tards that think their word against a sworn officers is somehow defence evidence.

comprehension isn't just a screw on the bottom of your fork leg.

[Gadget1]

[R RATED][/R RATED]

You fucken spastic, I'm referring to the tards that think their word against a sworn officers is somehow defence evidence.

comprehension isn't just a screw on the bottom of your fork leg.



Given you haven't shown any previous willingness to learn about the way things really go, very basic step by step info was needed.

[swarfie]

[R RATED][/R RATED]

You fucken spastic, I'm referring to the tards that think their word against a sworn officers is somehow defence evidence.

comprehension isn't just a screw on the bottom of your fork leg.

FFS Gordy just let the wanker go off to court and pay the fine AND the court costs :tugger:
Some people just cannot be helped :weird:

[Akzle]

Youtube has this 'camera shake fix' thing you can tick when you upload a video. It basically does some post-processing to try and make people sensitive to motion sickness hurl as quickly as possible. Whomever decided it was a good idea can eat a buffet of dicks.


its the fisheye bullshit that gets me. Who wants a fuken video of ANYTHING where the horizon is fuken curvy?

[pete376403]

*buzzer* wrong. You are not 'guilty until proven innocent', you are 'charged with an alleged offence until proven innocent'. Just like any. other. offence. The only difference is, you don't have to go to court to plead guilty and be sentenced, you can just pay the fixed fine and move along. Or you can deny the offence and have your day in court just like anything else.

Yes well in most cases (not traffic) you are"charged with an alleged offence until proven GUILTY". I think the only time you're expected to prove innocence is when you're after compensation after being locked up for something a later court decides you may not have done after all, but the justice minister doesn't want to pay out. (eg David Bain)

[nodrog]

Given you haven't shown any previous willingness to learn about the way things really go, very basic step by step info was needed.

Rofflecopter, I'm all about learning stuffs from internet forums.

what teaching diploma have you downloaded?

[Gadget1]

Rofflecopter, I'm all about learning stuffs from internet forums.

what teaching diploma have you downloaded?



Seeing how the info I posted was from the Victoria Legal Aid site, it isn't a forum.

If I was to look at some form of teaching, in your case it would be at the Early Childhood Education level.

[rastuscat]

officers sworn testimony... like the one presented in a court of law, that sort of sworn testimony which a civilian can also give as noted by RC a bit back
And what piece of legislation would this be found in, I'll go find it myself

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393463.html

[Scuba_Steve]

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393463.html

Cheers Mr R.Cat

[rastuscat]

Cheers Mr R.Cat

I would have found the section, but it looks as boring as bat shit.

[nodrog]

Seeing how the info I posted was from the Victoria Legal Aid site, it isn't a forum.

If I was to look at some form of teaching, in your case it would be at the Early Childhood Education level.

Choice, you should be able to pass that degree, its mostly just finger painting.

[Scuba_Steve]

I would have found the section, but it looks as boring as bat shit.

moreso than most legislation I've flicked through

[Gadget1]

Choice, you should be able to pass that degree, its mostly just finger painting.



Lol, your complete lack of knowledge is showing yet again.

[nodrog]

Lol, your complete lack of knowledge is showing yet again.

Its sure is, thanks for teaching me a lesson.

[TheDemonLord]

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393463.html

Cheers Rastus - however I read the act (and fuck me was it boring!)

The closest thing I could find was this section:


45 Admissibility of visual identification evidence

(1) If a formal procedure is followed by officers of an enforcement agency in obtaining visual identification evidence of a person alleged to have committed an offence or there was a good reason for not following a formal procedure, that evidence is admissible in a criminal proceeding unless the defendant proves on the balance of probabilities that the evidence is unreliable.

(2) If a formal procedure is not followed by officers of an enforcement agency in obtaining visual identification evidence of a person alleged to have committed an offence and there was no good reason for not following a formal procedure, that evidence is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances in which the identification was made have produced a reliable identification.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a formal procedure is a procedure for obtaining visual identification evidence—

(a) that is observed as soon as practicable after the alleged offence is reported to an officer of an enforcement agency; and

(b) in which the person to be identified is compared to no fewer than 7 other persons who are similar in appearance to the person to be identified; and

(c) in which no indication is given to the person making the identification as to who among the persons in the procedure is the person to be identified; and

(d) in which the person making the identification is informed that the person to be identified may or may not be among the persons in the procedure; and

(e) that is the subject of a written record of the procedure actually followed that is sworn to be true and complete by the officer who conducted the procedure and provided to the Judge and the defendant (but not the jury) at the hearing; and

(f) that is the subject of a pictorial record of what the witness looked at that is prepared and certified to be true and complete by the officer who conducted the procedure and provided to the Judge and the defendant (but not the jury) at the hearing; and

(g) that complies with any further requirements provided for in regulations made under section 201.

(4) The circumstances referred to in the following paragraphs are good reasons for not following a formal procedure:

(a) a refusal of the person to be identified to take part in the procedure (that is, by refusing to take part in a parade or other procedure, or to permit a photograph or video record to be taken, where the enforcement agency does not already have a photo or a video record that shows a true likeness of that person):

(b) the singular appearance of the person to be identified (being of a nature that cannot be disguised so that the person is similar in appearance to those with whom the person is to be compared):

(c) a substantial change in the appearance of the person to be identified after the alleged offence occurred and before it was practical to hold a formal procedure:

(d) no officer involved in the investigation or the prosecution of the alleged offence could reasonably anticipate that identification would be an issue at the trial of the defendant:

(e) if an identification of a person alleged to have committed an offence has been made to an officer of an enforcement agency soon after the offence was reported and in the course of that officer’s initial investigation:

(f) if an identification of a person alleged to have committed an offence has been made to an officer of an enforcement agency after a chance meeting between the person who made the identification and the person alleged to have committed the offence.

Which only relates to the indentification of a defendant and IMO does not waive the need for the Crown to produce evidence that an offence occured, only that an Officer's sworn testimony when following a formal procedure is admissable for identification

Unless I have missed something in the act?

[Gadget1]

Its sure is, thanks for teaching me a lesson.



What with the "Its" twice. Now you've gone too far man!

[geoffm]

*buzzer* wrong. You are not 'guilty until proven innocent', you are 'charged with an alleged offence until proven innocent'. Just like any. other. offence. The only difference is, you don't have to go to court to plead guilty and be sentenced, you can just pay the fixed fine and move along. Or you can deny the offence and have your day in court just like anything else.

Of course, the onus of proof is on you to prove you didn't do it - e.g. you are dead and have a death certificate and a body to prove it. If the cop says you did, then that is all the "evidence' required for the prosecution. Sounds like guilty until proven innocent to me.

[scumdog]

Of course, the onus of proof is on you to prove you didn't do it - e.g. you are dead and have a death certificate and a body to prove it. If the cop says you did, then that is all the "evidence' required for the prosecution. Sounds like guilty until proven innocent to me.


And your 'better way' (tm) for that scenario would be????..??

[Smifffy]

It's been bandied around a bit on various posts, it's time I put a different view forward.

In 2007 we set up a group called the Intersection Safety Team. It was set up to deal with the intersection crashes in Christchurch, as far as could be done. I had 10 staff, including the 3 full time bike riders, plus various others.

We'd identify a set of traffic lights where crashes had become too frequent, and stake them out. They were run as spot'n'stop operations, where I would be in jeans and t-shirts, and would detect an offence. I'd radio the troops, and they would stop the driver further down the road, and write the ticket.

We originally set up by videoing each set of lights, but the constraints became really obvious really quickly. I can stand there and look for seatbelt offences, cellphones, shit boxes etc, all the camera does is what it's pointed at. After a while we just gave up on using the cameras (digital video tapes, old school), just because they were only catching a very small percentage of our offences, and weren't worth the trouble of setting them up, and storing all the data.

Regarding offences where we didn't stop the vehicle but the offence was caught on tape, those offences generate around 8 hours of administration from 1 hour of filming, so aren't terribly time effective either. Those are Section 118 offences.

There's a danger that when cameras become more common, the courts will start to expect footage. I see, say, Skoober Steve riding down the road with no helmet on. It's his head, his risk blah blah blah. If I just turn up in court and the courts expect a video, and I don't have it, would that mean he didn't do it? Any cop turning up without a video would be seen as a risky conviction. Whether the person accused did it or not.

There truly is a perception that's it's easy to video the offences we see, when in fact it's a very dynamic environment in which we operate, and as yet, I can't see a way to video every angle of everything I need to prove a case.

Re the balance of evidence, the courts often consider that the officer has little motivation to distort the truth, whereas the person accused often has a significant motivation to do so. That tends to swing the courts favout in the direction of the prosecution. I've also been in court and given evidence as to what I have seen, and had the JPs dismiss charges that I know bloody well are correct. And the smirking accused who gloats his way out of court, having escaped the charge when he knows damn well he did it, doesn't help.

Just some thoughts. I reckon cameras will come, but I don't think they are there yet.

I think you have actually pinpointed part of the problem in explaining the difference between feet on the street and a camera: cameras use and require focus. People can't, or won't, focus. They want to get the maximum perceived benefit for the least effort.

You said your team was set up specifically to target intersection crashes at specific intersections. Then you talk about going after people for general road safety, or infringements, such as no seatbelt or cellphones. I would have thought that if the focus of the operation was intersection safety, then it would be intersection specific behaviour you would target, such as failing to stop, failing to give way, accelerating through an intersection, failing to indicate, etc. If the offender was also on a phone or not wearing a seatbelt that throw that at them as well. Failing to wear a seatbelt, or even having a wof or reg, has very little to do with intersection safety specifically, until after there is an incident. The problem is that targeting the behaviour you really want to change cuts down on the easy revenue.

[rastuscat]

I think you have actually pinpointed part of the problem in explaining the difference between feet on the street and a camera: cameras use and require focus. People can't, or won't, focus. They want to get the maximum perceived benefit for the least effort.

You said your team was set up specifically to target intersection crashes at specific intersections. Then you talk about going after people for general road safety, or infringements, such as no seatbelt or cellphones. I would have thought that if the focus of the operation was intersection safety, then it would be intersection specific behaviour you would target, such as failing to stop, failing to give way, accelerating through an intersection, failing to indicate, etc. If the offender was also on a phone or not wearing a seatbelt that throw that at them as well. Failing to wear a seatbelt, or even having a wof or reg, has very little to do with intersection safety specifically, until after there is an incident. The problem is that targeting the behaviour you really want to change cuts down on the easy revenue.

The real issue turned out to be that when you are looking for people going through red lights, you'll see 10 seatbelt offences and 12 cellphones for every traffic light offence you see. At least. You don't just ignore those just becauise they're not on your target list.

The Intersection Safety Team was disbanded 4 years after it started, as the boss needed the staff for the next project.

[Smifffy]

The real issue turned out to be that when you are looking for people going through red lights, you'll see 10 seatbelt offences and 12 cellphones for every traffic light offence you see. At least. You don't just ignore those just becauise they're not on your target list.

The Intersection Safety Team was disbanded 4 years after it started, as the boss needed the staff for the next project.

Well, that's my point really, in most high performing organisations, you decide which is your biggest priority. Red lights or seatbelts? Then you allocate the resources according to your priorities. “If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both.”

[Scuba_Steve]

Well, that's my point really, in most high performing organisations, you decide which is your biggest priority. Red lights or seatbelts? Then you allocate the resources according to your priorities. “If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both.”

but then most high performing organisations are doing for the cash moneys... oh, right!

[rastuscat]

Well, that's my point really, in most high performing organisations, you decide which is your biggest priority. Red lights or seatbelts? Then you allocate the resources according to your priorities. “If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both.”

Since maybe 1995 seat belts have been one of the three main pillars of our work. The others are speed, and drink drive.

Those are things that, as an organization, we have continued to focus on. So whatever we do, those things will always be a focus for us.

I keep saying that, tho I'm leaving in 33 days. It's going to be a big step for me.

[R650R]

Well, that's my point really, in most high performing organisations, you decide which is your biggest priority. Red lights or seatbelts? Then you allocate the resources according to your priorities. “If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both.”

I'd have thought people running reds while not wearing seatbelts would self eliminate themselves from being a long term road safety problem...

This is a classic case though of how the govt is NOT about protecting the general population and merely effecting a token effort to justify taxation to fund the police. Given the stated financial cost of a fatal by the LTSA one has to ask why we don't have red light cameras at ALL traffic light junctions. Just like how the Telco's throttle back our internet speeds to force us to pay more for 'better' connections the govt artificially restrict police resources so we are always more worried about other peoples bad driving than how the economy is being driven.

[Big Dog]

I'd have thought people running reds while not wearing seatbelts would self eliminate themselves from being a long term road safety problem...

This is a classic case though of how the govt is NOT about protecting the general population and merely effecting a token effort to justify taxation to fund the police. Given the stated financial cost of a fatal by the LTSA one has to ask why we don't have red light cameras at ALL traffic light junctions. Just like how the Telco's throttle back our internet speeds to force us to pay more for 'better' connections the govt artificially restrict police resources so we are always more worried about other peoples bad driving than how the economy is being driven.

The law of diminishing returns.
The more cameras you have the less effective they appear.

Also the more you put up the more the civil liberties group complain. Far more efficient use if your tax dollars to target the 10 riskiest intersections every year.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[jaykay]

There is evidence that Red Light cameras increase the number of rear end crashes, by more than they reduce side impacts.

[Big Dog]

I vote for snipers at intersections.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[pritch]

There's a danger that when cameras become more common, the courts will start to expect footage..

There was just such a recent case in New York . In New York it is fully expected that cars will mow down cyclists and pedestrians. It doesn't normally count as any sort of a crime.

An elderly lady and her grandaughter were crossing at an intersection with the traffic lights in their favour. A car came around the corner and mowed them both down killing the girl IIRC. As it happened a following car had recorded the incident on a dash cam.
When it went to court the judge said, "I assume there is no video evidence".
The cop said, "Ahhhh."
And before he could finish the judge said "Discharged."


My main problem with any Govt staff having cameras is that once the pics get back to the office they become official Govt documents and it is an offence to dispose of them. Just as some people go mad with a paint brush, some people go mad with a camera. Depending what it is, the crap they bring back may have to be stored forever. The staff I used to work with now all have iPhones, I am so pleased that they didn't have those while I worked there. Somebody else's problem now.

[dangerous]

Cameras are getting better. One day they might be the answer, just not now.

ok just read to bout the 6th post... so as cameras get beter so does photo shop etc, whos to say with the hackers we have a video is acurate, has it been played with... na imho all this video footage shit to catch people is a crock a shit, its not proof of anything

besides Mr PD what do you cear ya outa here ;-)

[geoffm]

And your 'better way' (tm) for that scenario would be????..??

Provide evidence of wrongdoing - video being one. The technology is out there.
Have the police actually having to provide such evidence at court - just like every other criminal case, and the JPs not just taking the cops word for it that the defendant is guilty. As it currently stands we could save a lot of taxpayers money by doing without the court option completely.
Investigating and prosecuting police officers that lie like a rug, knowing that they will never be held to account for it. Yes this happens, and I can speak of personal experience, albeit quite a few years ago. It was a traffic case as well... This might be a bit much to ask however.

[Reckless]

Provide evidence of wrongdoing - video being one. The technology is out there.
Have the police actually having to provide such evidence at court - just like every other criminal case, and the JPs not just taking the cops word for it that the defendant is guilty. As it currently stands we could save a lot of taxpayers money by doing without the court option completely.
Investigating and prosecuting police officers that lie like a rug, knowing that they will never be held to account for it. Yes this happens, and I can speak of personal experience, albeit quite a few years ago. It was a traffic case as well... This might be a bit much to ask however.


I agree with much of the above as it would also stop the "just write the ticket and let the courts sort it out"
That seems to be coming more of a frequent scenario within the popo.
It would also stop the ones writing tickets and working on the assumption that 80% of people will "just pay" no matter how dodgy the call was in the first place.
10% will take it to court and the JP will always side with them and 10% they will loose or let go.
I am also one that got done for the magic 121k figure I know I wasn't doing.

[R650R]

Well it might be too hard for the Police but here's Joe Blogs video evidencing.... http://roadshamer.com/f/most-viewed/?geo=NZ&dateRange=month

Some of the vids are pretty lame though so think people will get bored with this site...
The pedestrian red light runner is a real doozy though. Cant believe the pedestrian walked out into the stream of red light runners though....

[dangerous]

Well it might be too hard for the Police but here's Joe Blogs video evidencing.... http://roadshamer.com/f/most-viewed/?geo=NZ&dateRange=month

Some of the vids are pretty lame though so think people will get bored with this site...
The pedestrian red light runner is a real doozy though. Cant believe the pedestrian walked out into the stream of red light runners though....

no sorry.. I dont get it, watched 3 vids all normal shit ya see every day, whats the point???
I expect ya pedestrian (didnt see vid) did so cos he has been sucessfully dummed down... and or if hes signed in, wearing hi vis and has ID then is bullet proof and ya dont need to worry bout dangers...

people you are all... prepering us for zombination or death