<p>The BTP’s Inspector<b> Keith Barnes </b>busts some myths on body-warn cameras, vital tech in tackling work-related violence in rail.</p>
Just to clarify: a body-worn camera (BWC) is not there to spy on staff, and recordings cannot be accessed by the police without the footage being downloaded by the user and a request being sent by the police. BWCs actually play an integral part in protecting both staff and public alike. CCTV footage at stations and surrounding areas are often in abundance, but there are sometimes limitations, such as varying quality, static positioning, download times, and no audio.
Alternatively, body worn camera footage has many advantages, such as consistently being very good quality, providing close-up footage, giving the viewer a clearer perspective, and crucially, including sound to add context to an incident.
In policing, we use BWCs to act as an independent witness and provide transparency in our work. This can be crucial when conducting stop-and-searches or making arrests.
BWC footage can be an excellent tool in evidencing threats made to members of staff from the perpetrator, highlighting the actions taken by victims before, during or after an incident. A main advantage is the way it naturally provides evidence of the emotion used and experienced during an incident. This just cannot be ascertained from standard CCTV footage.
Imagine the scenario of an employee being seen on CCTV (no sound) standing at a gate line and then pushing past a member of public, as the member of public was reaching into their back pocket. Most people would think the person was reaching for their ticket to travel and would probably think ill of the member of staff.
Take the exact same event, with the visual footage captured via BWC, which includes audio. Now the member of the public is clearly heard to make a verbal threat of immediate violence towards the member of staff who, fearing for their safety, tries to take evasive action and in doing so, pushes past the member of public.
So, with BWC footage, the actions of the potential victim can be clearly explained and importantly, as far as the law is concerned, could be considered the behaviour of a reasonable person.
A bystander’s footage can also be useful in this scenario. Abusive behaviour towards staff could be captured by a colleague who isn’t directly involved but has activated their camera. Before decisions can be made whether to prosecute offenders, video evidence must be provided and viewed by the decision maker – this can be the police and/or the Crown Prosecution Service.
CCTV footage can take around 28 days to arrive. BWC footage can be downloaded more quickly, speeding up the decision-making process. The clearer the evidence of an offence being committed, the less chance a perpetrator would have of producing a defence for their actions. This provides a greater chance of a guilty plea and a quicker judicial process. This could negate the need for the victim and witnesses to attend court.