Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

ED E · 03-01-2019 11:14PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

It’s not that cameras are unreliable. It’s that “proving” Cctv to allow it be admitted in evidence in a prosecution by AGS is far more complex than people think it is. Other police forces may accept email submission and be able to prosecute off that. In Ireland that’s not the case. The original must be retained by AGS. Original as in the micro SD in your dash cam or whatever device. I wonder if you make a complaint by email, and it’s a false complaint, what recourse do the UK police have? In Ireland you won’t be prosecuted for making a false complaint unless you’ve made a signed witness statement with statutory declaration. I imagine it harkens to Blackstones Ratio to let 10 guilty walk than convict one innocent person, is the grounds to that.

Must? Where's that in legislation or regulation?

Theres FSI Guidelines and best practice for computer forensics searches but I've never seen it as a mandatory requirement. In the case of say a child porn charge you'd want the original machine as the defence is likely to really go for it but video evidence as a backup to first party testimony - I'd question the need to be so robust.

Gardai have accepted video and stills from me by email. Obviously they were copies of a modification. Court was on the cards yet no mention of originals was ever made. Traffic isn't CAB.

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 12:33AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i remember someone saying here that often the threat (to a driver accused of an offence) that the complainant is willing to testify in court that the offence occurred, can be enough to make a driver accept the accusation and spare the day in court.

maybe it's the case that if the complainant (say a cyclist) had accompanying video evidence of the alleged offence, it'd kick another leg out from under the stool of the driver's defence, even if on its own it wouldn't be enough to secure a conviction?

Yeah and that’s what happens a lot, however our recidivists tend to avail of free legal aid and have no issue going to court.

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 12:40AM

ED E wrote: »

Must? Where's that in legislation or regulation?

Theres FSI Guidelines and best practice for computer forensics searches but I've never seen it as a mandatory requirement. In the case of say a child porn charge you'd want the original machine as the defence is likely to really go for it but video evidence as a backup to first party testimony - I'd question the need to be so robust.

Gardai have accepted video and stills from me by email. Obviously they were copies of a modification. Court was on the cards yet no mention of originals was ever made. Traffic isn't CAB.

I know traffic isn’t CAB. CAB take you to court on a balance of probability, ie tip the scales of justice, AGS must prosecute to the higher degree of beyond reasonable doubt.
But surely you agree that any prosecution by the Gardai should be beyond reasonable doubt even if it’s just a minor road traffic offence? It’s a cornerstone of our justice system to protect against false convictions.

Yeah originals must be retained, the Garda makes copies of the original for investigation purposes and disclosure to defence. The original is retained for chain of custody of exhibits. There have been cases, including today in court, where matters are thrown out for this reason.

CramCycle · 04-01-2019 01:11AM

I think your missing the point Robbie. While what your saying rings true, in reality is not the case. Your relying on the perpetrator pushing it all the way to court, when guilty, and for the witness/victim not to come forward. It is a traffic offence and while the punishment is annoying it is not something worth racking up thousands in legal bills unless already on the line to lose your license. Even then, as any barrister will tell you, it depends who is the judge on the day as to how it will go. your saying a guilty person facing a small fine will risk going all the way through the courts and the legal bills they may be liable for.

you should head down to the courthouse some day, I have done it once, it is entertaining in most cases but those who go in guilty for minor offences are flipping a coin where they may walk out scot free or face a far harsher penalty and often pay costs regardless.

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 01:31AM

CramCycle wrote: »

I think your missing the point Robbie. While what your saying rings true, in reality is not the case. Your relying on the perpetrator pushing it all the way to court, when guilty, and for the witness/victim not to come forward. It is a traffic offence and while the punishment is annoying it is not something worth racking up thousands in legal bills unless already on the line to lose your license. Even then, as any barrister will tell you, it depends who is the judge on the day as to how it will go. your saying a guilty person facing a small fine will risk going all the way through the courts and the legal bills they may be liable for.

you should head down to the courthouse some day, I have done it once, it is entertaining in most cases but those who go in guilty for minor offences are flipping a coin where they may walk out scot free or face a far harsher penalty and often pay costs regardless.

I was in court today and am at least every week. Your average working decent person will generally pay an FCPN. My experience though is that the average decent person will take a drunk driving matter to a hearing and hope to get off. Look at the sheer amount of case law on drunken driving. Case law arises from contested matters in court. It’s my belief all that case law comes from so called decent people trying to get away without a driving ban, hence all the case law here.

The usual offenders won’t pay an FCPN. They will hope the charge/summons will fall at any of the steps along the road to a hearing date in court. They’ll try to bunch up all their charges and/or summonses to one court date so they’re only suffering one penalty for all their offences. They’ll hope the summons isn’t served. The courts now want personal service of summonses. They’ll want to see the weight of evidence against them, that’s the disclosure of statements Cctv etc, they’ll either plead if the Garda case is strong, or if the judge is known by the solicitor/barrister for being generally soft, or they may push it to a hearing date and hope the Garda witnesses aren’t there.

I saw this in court today. A CCTV operator from a shop for a theft didn’t show. The case was struck out. It’s very common in the district court, and the usual faces know this. Also these usual faces are generally given free legal aid.

Lumen · 04-01-2019 08:16AM

Yeah, I went to district court a few years ago for a minor speeding offence where I'd forgotten to pay the FCPN on time. I discovered it a few days after the expiry date, phoned up and was told I'd have to go to court.

I spent a morning hanging around waiting for my case to come up, and then it was struck out because the garda wasn't there. Not postponed, gone. Puff.

Mad system. Seeing all the gardai lined up chatting away all day. The justice system in this country is a total joke. If you raise the question of efficiency with anyone working in it (and I'm married to one) they'll just start banging on about how due process needs to be followed. Total arsebiscuits. I got off. Where is the justice?

Macy0161 · 04-01-2019 10:20AM

RobbieMD wrote: »

I don’t think you can blame the RSA or AGS on it. It’s our justice system at work, where you’re presumed innocent until guilt is proven. I think it’s the only way to have it. The system could be improved though.

I can blame them for not accepting video footage as a starting point, when they will with a traffic watch verbal complaint. If the person making the complaint is not willing to follow up with a statement, so be it.

I also blame the RSA and AGS for not pushing for more camera technology in general - as in official ANPR, More speed cameras, average speed cameras,Red Light Cameras, Bus Lanes, yellow boxes. Close and dangerous overtakes are just another consequence of that general car is king mentality that has developed through lack of enforcement.

magicbastarder · 04-01-2019 10:30AM

so how would it work if video footage was say 'made available' in court (considering that the foundation of a case in court would be that a complainant is willing to go and testify that an offence was committed, as i understand it)?
would the entry of the video footage simply not be allowed, or would the defence's legal rep challenge it based on the fact that chain of evidence is not clear?
or given the context, would the judge ask (or be entitled to ask) 'are you claiming that the video evidence has been tampered with or does not actually depict what is being claimed?'

CramCycle · 04-01-2019 10:55AM

Lumen wrote: »

He's gone now. As has Hook.

Ciara Kelly and Pat Kenny are OK. They both have a tendency to veer off into uninformed bull but at least they come across as rational human beings.

Anything but Tubs.

RobbieMD wrote: »

I was in court today and am at least every week. Your average working decent person will generally pay an FCPN. My experience though is that the average decent person will take a drunk driving matter to a hearing and hope to get off. Look at the sheer amount of case law on drunken driving. Case law arises from contested matters in court. It’s my belief all that case law comes from so called decent people trying to get away without a driving ban, hence all the case law here.

The usual offenders won’t pay an FCPN. They will hope the charge/summons will fall at any of the steps along the road to a hearing date in court. They’ll try to bunch up all their charges and/or summonses to one court date so they’re only suffering one penalty for all their offences. They’ll hope the summons isn’t served. The courts now want personal service of summonses. They’ll want to see the weight of evidence against them, that’s the disclosure of statements Cctv etc, they’ll either plead if the Garda case is strong, or if the judge is known by the solicitor/barrister for being generally soft, or they may push it to a hearing date and hope the Garda witnesses aren’t there.

I saw this in court today. A CCTV operator from a shop for a theft didn’t show. The case was struck out. It’s very common in the district court, and the usual faces know this. Also these usual faces are generally given free legal aid.

Lumen wrote: »

Yeah, I went to district court a few years ago for a minor speeding offence where I'd forgotten to pay the FCPN on time. I discovered it a few days after the expiry date, phoned up and was told I'd have to go to court.

I spent a morning hanging around waiting for my case to come up, and then it was struck out because the garda wasn't there. Not postponed, gone. Puff.

Mad system. Seeing all the gardai lined up chatting away all day. The justice system in this country is a total joke. If you raise the question of efficiency with anyone working in it (and I'm married to one) they'll just start banging on about how due process needs to be followed. Total arsebiscuits. I got off. Where is the justice?

And that was my point in a nutshell. Most people, Lumen included apparently, will pay the FCPN. If you make it monetary with a note on Pulse rather than a penalty point issue, the chance of losing a license is gone, its is just an annoyance that you are slightly less likely to commit again or at least think twice about.

The usual suspects will always ignore to the end or go to court and take a chance it will be struck out. These are the same crowd who will probably drive home from the court house after their license is taken off them, christ, look at the garda traffic twitter feed, full of people who simply do not care. If I were driving without tax and insurance, or a few pints on board. id be doing my best to park in a normal space, drive to the limit and so on. Some of these people park across two blue badge bays with a tin of Heineken in the cup holder and no tax, insurance and the car was probably a write off 3 years previously. The legal system will never fix this crowd the way it is.

Hence why I make the proposal of not having it as a PP offence, people will fight that for fear of losing their license. Hit them in their pocket at a price less than the cost of going to court and you will hopefully notify quite a few people about what is acceptable..

Lumen · 04-01-2019 11:06AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Hit them in their pocket at a price less than the cost of going to court and you will hopefully notify quite a few people about what is acceptable..

Of course there is the practical alternative of cyclists fitting perpendicular flags to their bicycles, perhaps with a super scratchy thing on the end.

Fian · 04-01-2019 01:45PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

so how would it work if video footage was say 'made available' in court (considering that the foundation of a case in court would be that a complainant is willing to go and testify that an offence was committed, as i understand it)?
would the entry of the video footage simply not be allowed, or would the defence's legal rep challenge it based on the fact that chain of evidence is not clear?
or given the context, would the judge ask (or be entitled to ask) 'are you claiming that the video evidence has been tampered with or does not actually depict what is being claimed?'

To admit it in evidence you need to "prove" it - call the person who made the video to say where & when they made it, otherwise it could be 20 year old footage from another country and nobody would know.

DavyD_83 · 04-01-2019 02:16PM

Fian wrote: »

There are benefits to laws which are not enforceable - when publicised they can impact behaviour because people become aware that failing to give 1.5m is criminal even if there is little real prospect of enforcement. The general public at large would probably underestimate the difficulties in enforcement anyway. Conversely I am worried that the abandoning of the law will be taken as an endorsement of close passing as being perfectly fine/legal.

I really disagree with this. Laws created without any common sense or ability to enforce only cause more confusion, outrage and risk in the roads.
Naive law abiding eejits take the "if its law it must make sense approach" and start driving ridiculously for fear of being caught. While the majority of problematic drivers see these rules for the nonsense they are and ignore them.

I think the rules/laws need to be improved, just not in this way.

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 02:27PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

so how would it work if video footage was say 'made available' in court (considering that the foundation of a case in court would be that a complainant is willing to go and testify that an offence was committed, as i understand it)?
would the entry of the video footage simply not be allowed, or would the defence's legal rep challenge it based on the fact that chain of evidence is not clear?
or given the context, would the judge ask (or be entitled to ask) 'are you claiming that the video evidence has been tampered with or does not actually depict what is being claimed?'

In a trial there would be a Voir Dire, which is essentially a trial within the trial, to decide whether evidence can be admitted. This is the part where chain of custody, proofing the Cctv etc comes into play. This will happen with the jury not present. Either the state are successful and it’s allowed or not.

In the district court, in my opinion anyways, it’s not challenged as much, although it can be, and the same burden of proof is on the state to prove their case.

However, people were prosecuted and convicted long before CCTV became a thing. It should be viewed as an aid to the prosecution and not something that is solely relied upon. Witnesses can still give their oral testimony and people are still convicted on this alone.

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 02:50PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

I can blame them for not accepting video footage as a starting point, when they will with a traffic watch verbal complaint. If the person making the complaint is not willing to follow up with a statement, so be it.

I also blame the RSA and AGS for not pushing for more camera technology in general - as in official ANPR, More speed cameras, average speed cameras,Red Light Cameras, Bus Lanes, yellow boxes. Close and dangerous overtakes are just another consequence of that general car is king mentality that has developed through lack of enforcement.

I genuinely don’t know how the UK police can accept Cctv by email. How do they authenticate it? What penalty is there for vexatious reports? How can the defence solicitor examine it?

I know that 99% if not more will be genuine reports, from genuine people, however the justice system is built to allow 100 guilty walk free than have 1 innocent convicted.

Look at all the drunk drivers who walked due to the Avadenei case, where a drunk driver, essentially put on hold over 1000 drunken driver cases as the breath test report he received was only in English and not in English and Irish. He couldn’t speak Irish but his solicitor clearly saw an avenue to exploit. This had to go to the Supreme Court, who didn’t find in his favour. However 100s of drunken drivers got off due to justice delayed being just justice denied to them.

I 100% agree on your other points. There should be more aids to detection of traffic offences. I think each ANPR device in a Garda car costs something like €7k, which is crazy money and ultimately means very few cars in the fleet have it.

I agree with Ciaràn Cuff that it takes the 3 E’s as he referred to them. Engineering out problems with our roads and infrastructure, the Education part from the RSA and the enforcement part from AGS. I don’t think many motorists really understand how dangerous and unnerving a close pass is to a cyclist, unless they’ve been a cyclist. The 1m and 1.5m rule would’ve been very difficult to prove though they make sense in the real world and is something I would’ve welcomed as a cyclist myself, and for my kids cycling to school during that crazy rush hour.

Our legislators love to set a specified ceiling number whether that’s for speeding, blood alcohol content for drunken driving, minimum tread depth, light transmission though a window tint, dB level from a noisy exhaust. However these all require calibrated devices to measure.

Lumen · 04-01-2019 03:09PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

I genuinely don’t know how the UK police can accept Cctv by email. How do they authenticate it? What penalty is there for vexatious reports? How can the defence solicitor examine it?

The Digital Imaging procedure is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378451/DIP_2.1_16-Apr-08_v2.3__Web_2835.pdf

It covers third party origination. As I read it, the controls start from the point that the police receive it. So that answers the question about "How can the defence solicitor examine it?".

As for the rest...

https://www.scarletfire.co.uk/safety-cameras-cyclists-cycling-head-cams/

"Some points to bear in mind regarding video submissions: Videos should be submitted within 48 hours of the event. Footage should be of high quality and include at least two minutes before and two minutes after any incident. For prosecution purposes, video evidence can only act as corroboration. This means that you will need to attend a police station and give a written statement and must be prepared to attend court to give evidence in person."

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 03:58PM

Lumen wrote: »

The Digital Imaging procedure is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378451/DIP_2.1_16-Apr-08_v2.3__Web_2835.pdf

It covers third party origination. As I read it, the controls start from the point that the police receive it. So that answers the question about "How can the defence solicitor examine it?".

As for the rest...

https://www.scarletfire.co.uk/safety-cameras-cyclists-cycling-head-cams/

"Some points to bear in mind regarding video submissions: Videos should be submitted within 48 hours of the event. Footage should be of high quality and include at least two minutes before and two minutes after any incident. For prosecution purposes, video evidence can only act as corroboration. This means that you will need to attend a police station and give a written statement and must be prepared to attend court to give evidence in person."

Thanks for the link. I had a quick scan only. I understand that the document says the controls start from when the police receive it, and that’s only right, the police have obligations to safely retain and store evidence. It still doesn’t escape the fact that the original recording can be requested by the defence to examine it.

A case here in Ireland- Dpp v Ludlow.
It concerns the duty of Gardai to preserve and retain evidence in a criminal prosecution.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-duty-bound-to-preserve-and-disclose-evidence-1.904506%3fmode=amp

Lumen · 04-01-2019 06:21PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

Thanks for the link. I had a quick scan only. I understand that the document says the controls start from when the police receive it, and that’s only right, the police have obligations to safely retain and store evidence. It still doesn’t escape the fact that the original recording can be requested by the defence to examine it.

A case here in Ireland- Dpp v Ludlow.
It concerns the duty of Gardai to preserve and retain evidence in a criminal prosecution.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-duty-bound-to-preserve-and-disclose-evidence-1.904506%3fmode=amp

I'm not sure what you mean by "original". I would argue that identical representations of a digital file are the same thing, regardless of what media they are stored on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 06:37PM

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "original". I would argue that identical representations of a digital file are the same thing, regardless of what media they are stored on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

But that would be the doubt that a defence solicitor or barrister would argue. That they hadn’t the ability to examine the original Cctv. And the maxim of if in doubt, throw it out, could/would apply.

That link above is sort of what I’m taking about. The driver was acquitted on the basis that the Gardai hadn’t retained the tyres for the defence to examine. Most of the rules on evidence used by Gardai come from case law such as that.

Lumen · 04-01-2019 06:56PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

But that would be the doubt that a defence solicitor or barrister would argue. That they hadn’t the ability to examine the original Cctv. And the maxim of if in doubt, throw it out, could/would apply.

That link above is sort of what I’m taking about. The driver was acquitted on the basis that the Gardai hadn’t retained the tyres for the defence to examine. Most of the rules on evidence used by Gardai come from case law such as that.

I don't see how this is troubling.

Defence counsel routines examines copies of evidence, e.g. video tapes of garda interviews (until quite recently I had to maintain a VHS player for this purpose). And those are imperfect analogue copies.

Surely it would come up as an objection before trial?

What is the doubt? That the witness interfered with the recording? They could do that easily on the original device.

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 07:24PM

Lumen wrote: »

I don't see how this is troubling.

Defence counsel routines examines copies of evidence, e.g. video tapes of garda interviews (until quite recently I had to maintain a VHS player for this purpose). And those are imperfect analogue copies.

Surely it would come up as an objection before trial?

What is the doubt? That the witness interfered with the recording? They could do that easily on the original device.

There is a Statutory Instrument to cover electronic recording of interviews in Garda station. SI 74/1997 that details the storage, sealing and retainion of an original copy of the interview. The machine recorded 3 copies. The interviewee choose one as a master copy and he/she along with interviewing Gardai signed a seal which was wrappped around the tape. This still applies to the DVDs used in interviews now.

Yeah an original can be tampered with alright. I imagine this is why the Corrib rape tape incident never went to court. The tape had been edited before it was handed to GSOC. If the tape had just been accepted as a true unedited one, then perhaps innocent Gardai would’ve been prosecuted and convicted on flawed evidence.

04-01-2019 08:01PM

You regularly hear appeals from Gardai on the news for dashcam footage. How is that handled if used in a prosecution? Just sounds a bit like they pick and choose when they are happy to take it or not.

To me it sounds like a case of them needing updated guidelines and technology in this area, the later is true of so many aspects of their day to to day job.

RobbieMD · 04-01-2019 08:14PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You regularly hear appeals from Gardai on the news for dashcam footage. How is that handled if used in a prosecution? Just sounds a bit like they pick and choose when they are happy to take it or not.

To me it sounds like a case of them needing updated guidelines and technology in this area, the later is true of so many aspects of their day to to day job.

Dashcam footage can be used in court. Just it’s not as easy as people assume it may be. And just because they appeal for it, doesn’t mean they will be using it in court. It may be used to prove or disprove information already at hand.

Yeah agree with your comment on the technology aspect. A lot of the IT systems used are very outdated. Highlighted by pretty much every oversight body as being critical to moving AGS into the 21st century.

AndrewJRenko · 05-01-2019 02:19PM

Fian wrote: »

To admit it in evidence you need to "prove" it - call the person who made the video to say where & when they made it, otherwise it could be 20 year old footage from another country and nobody would know.

Could be difficult to produce 20 year old footage from another country with 171D registrations.

ED E wrote: »

Your word is enough. All it takes is an accusation.

Joe Bloggs says 01D1234 was driving dangerously on Pearse Street at 12:30PM on Tuesday.
Garda takes statement
Garda approaches 01D1234 and repeats accusation, offers FCPN option if they want to accept culpability. If not it proceeds towards court.

This is the theory all right. Video helps to eliminate the he said/she said stuff.

Though Gardai still generally seem reluctant to act on it. I had video showing a driver using the phone five times over the course of 10 minutes or so. I was able to identify the brand of phone. I gave a formal statement (under formal caution, as I had crossed the white line momentarily) and the response from the investigating Garda was;

Garda: Well, it could have been any kind of device he had in his hands?
Me: So Garda, what kind of device do you think it was?
Garda: I don't have to answer to you.

Hurrache wrote: »

Well this escalated quickly once Cllr Keith Redmond got involved needlessly and made an absolute tit of himself. I'm sure some here are in the same constituency (Howth/Malahide) as the eejit?

https://twitter.com/roakleyIRL/status/1080770398675976192?s=19

Surprisingly, when Redmond was brought onto Prime Time to discuss cycling last year in the usual "Let's find an extreme viewpoint to stir things up", he was actually fairly rational and even vaguely reasonable.

Hurrache · 05-01-2019 07:50PM

Didn't realise that was him on Prime Time. He's still needling cyclists on twitter since getting involved in the initial spat anyway.

SixSixSix · 06-01-2019 10:29AM

Fian wrote: »

To admit it in evidence you need to "prove" it - call the person who made the video to say where & when they made it, otherwise it could be 20 year old footage from another country and nobody would know.

How about if the evidence came from the perpetrator who just also happened to be the maker and supplier?

Statler · 06-01-2019 01:34PM

CCTV used in court cases is very rarely (if ever these days) the 'original'. Most CCTV systems nowadays are digital, so in order to preserve the original the Gardai would need to remove the hard drive from the unit, rendering it (the unit) useless. They download the footage, aka make a copy, there's a record kept of who downloaded it and the chain of custody of the copy from then on, but it's not the original. Once the copy is taken the original, which is still on the CCTV system hard drive, should be overwritten within 30 days as per Data Protection guidelines. The Gardai don't ask that this is prevented, because they have a true copy of the footage. Surely the same applies to all video footage?

AndrewJRenko · 06-01-2019 01:52PM

When giving video to Gardai with statements, some of the Gardai asked me to detail something like; I downloaded the video from my camera to my laptop when I got home. I copied the video from my laptop to a DVD which I gave to the Garda today.

RobbieMD · 06-01-2019 09:32PM

Statler wrote: »

CCTV used in court cases is very rarely (if ever these days) the 'original'. Most CCTV systems nowadays are digital, so in order to preserve the original the Gardai would need to remove the hard drive from the unit, rendering it (the unit) useless. They download the footage, aka make a copy, there's a record kept of who downloaded it and the chain of custody of the copy from then on, but it's not the original. Once the copy is taken the original, which is still on the CCTV system hard drive, should be overwritten within 30 days as per Data Protection guidelines. The Gardai don't ask that this is prevented, because they have a true copy of the footage. Surely the same applies to all video footage?

So what happens if a Garda investigating a crime obtains a search warrant. They execute the search warrant and seize a hard drive featuring Cctv evidence of an indictable offence. Are you suggesting they should or are obliged to overwrite the hard drive within 30 days?

If I was a defence barrister, I’m confident that I’d successfully argue against that CCTV being allowed used in court.

AGS and other authorities have exemptions for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

As Andrew says in his post, they’ll usually include some information in taking your statement that it’s not been edited etc. Recent guidelines have gone further than this and now there is a substantial amount of information to go into a properly taken statement on CCTV.

Statler · 06-01-2019 09:49PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

So what happens if a Garda investigating a crime obtains a search warrant. They execute the search warrant and seize a hard drive featuring Cctv evidence of an indictable offence. Are you suggesting they should or are obliged to overwrite the hard drive within 30 days?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, if anyone has a valid reason to keep footage for more than 30 days then they can, my reasoning is that if the original footage is actually required then Gardai would insist that the original is preserved every time they get a copy of CCTV footage. That doesn't happen.

RobbieMD wrote: »

If I was a defence barrister, I’m confident that I’d successfully argue against that CCTV being allowed used in court.

I may be misunderstanding, if you're saying you could get a true copy of CCTV footage thrown out just becasue it's a copy, then no, you definitely couldn't.

RobbieMD wrote: »

and other authorities have exemptions for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

As Andrew says in his post, they’ll usually include some information in taking your statement that it’s not been edited etc. Recent guidelines have gone further than this and now there is a substantial amount of information to go into a properly taken statement on CCTV.

So, they can take copies of cctv footage once they get a statement from the Data Controller/ CCTV operator? That's pretty much what I'm saying, the original isn't needed...

Anyway, we're wandering way off topic, long story short if a Garda tells you they need the original video footage then they're fobbing you off. (Note, I'm saying original, not unedited.)

AndrewJRenko · 06-01-2019 10:26PM

Looks like Gardai are happy to use a poor quality copy, taken by filming the display on another device when it suits them.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/video-gardai-seek-petrol-station-arsonist-895945.html#.XDJwu_cLvsg.twitter

Oh, I forgot - bloody cyclists...

Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Comments