Video evidence - Pros and cons

[nodrog:Me]

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:Me]

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/p...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.