I read this article upon release but didn’t share or comment any further. I just rolled my eyes and moved on to the next CCTV Story of the day…
My reason for commenting on this now comes after the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Tweet.
Let’s not fool ourselves here. This probably goes on, not just up and down the UK but, around the world every day.
Although there are many issues in the article worthy of discussion, let’s look at this statement:
“there has been a very clear order by Judge Harvey Clark on April 10 that the video must be compatible with court kit”.
My point here is that, shouldn’t it be the other way around?
The often unnecessary, and damaging, transcoding and recapturing of video evidence is putting a huge burden on the entire Criminal Justice System. By continuously forcing Digital Multimedia Evidence to be converted, purely so it plays on the Courts DVD Player, wastes so much time and effort.
Yes, there are times where the correct forensic processing of the video must take place. However, this is not your dancing cat footage for YouTube. This is evidence, so it must be dealt with correctly. If you convert a video incorrectly, and remove detail or add artefacts into that footage – can it be relied upon?
Is it not better to ensure that the courts have the ability to play the original recorded evidence first, before forcing it to be changed?
And if it is to be changed, in order to assist in the analysis, interpretation or presentation of that evidence, it should be down to a person competent in completing that task.