MEMORANDUM
Response & Operations: National Office
Date:
14 March 2019
To:
Jason Ross, Senior Manager: Capability, Response & Operations;
Geoff Logan, Operations Manager, Response & Operations;
Paddy Hannon, Operations Coordinator, Response & Operations;
Darrin Putt, Project Officer: Deployable Assets, Response & Operations.
From:
s9(2)(a)
Research Analyst, Response & Operations Research and Evaluation team
Subject: Discussion re BWC review and recommendations
SUMMARY
The working group met to discuss the evidence summary and recommendations circulated in the BWC
Review and Recommendations document. A few minor adjustments have been made to the wording
of the recommendations, as noted during the meeting.
ISSUES DISCUSSED
Recommendation 1: Restricting recording to the upper levels of PCA. We discussed whether the trial
could compare officers with different activation policies (i.e. only higher PCA levels vs. broader
capture). There are compelling reasons to capture more than just the upper levels of PCA; we suggest
the best way to draw conclusions about the consequences of this decision is to have a broader
capture criteria for everyone in the trial, and then analyse the footage to identify and compare what
would and would not have been captured under the stricter policy.
Recommendation 2: Automatic activation of cameras.
The technology is not yet to the point where
automatic activation would be achievable in the trial, but it may become viable as technology
improves. At this stage we could have automatic BWC activation for 20 patrol cars; al cameras in the
vicinity would be activated in response to a criteria such as the car door opening, or the vehicle’s light
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982
bar being activated. We agreed that the more we can reduce the element of human error in BWC
recording, the better.
Recommendations 3 – 7. No major concerns were raised. We agreed that the Police Association are
key stakeholders, and we wil consult with them going forward.
Recommendation 8: Preventing review of evidentiary footage before testifying (or making a
Released
statement). This recommendation was the most problematic, and there was considerable discussion
about it.
One way we might get around the difficulties of this issue is to avoid placing constraints on viewing the
footage either way in the trial (i.e. viewing is neither required nor restricted), and then monitor what
happens. We could gather data about how often officers view their footage, we could ask officers to
indicate in TOR (or other) reports whether or not they viewed the footage before making the report,
and we could ask survey/interview questions around this issue at the end of the trial. We could also
add in a research question around the effect of viewing footage on later testimony/reports to find out
what actual y happens in practice. Ideal y it would be good if someone else could be responsible for
Page
1 of
2
the management/flagging of the footage, so officers would not be required to access it for
administrative purposes.
If officers can view their BWC footage, an additional advantage would be a potential reduction in time
spent on writing reports, with BWC footage reducing the amount of information required to be
written out. This advantage would be most likely to be realised with focus on Recommendation 7,
encouraging officers to narrate leading up to, and after an event on the BWC, instead of writing out
the same information in a journal afterwards. This kind of reporting in the immediate situation would
provide high quality and reliable information about what happened and the officers’ views. If possible,
it would be beneficial to work towards utilising footage as evidence in court. Regardless of what is
decided regarding viewing footage, it could be argued that this in-time reporting captured by the BWC
is the officer’s initial report, which necessarily occurs before any footage review.
The concerns raised about restricting viewing were that it would contravene officers’ right (under the
Bil of Rights) to view their own footage/journal, and that it would not be acceptable to the Police
Association or to frontline officers who would feel that we were trying to catch them out, and unfairly
preventing them from accessing their own record, subsequently eroding front line buy-in for BWC
implementation. We also discussed the difficulty in remembering the specifics of what happened in
very high stress situations, with the idea that the footage would work as a memory cue. Preventing
viewing of the footage would also create a barrier to reflection and professional development in staff
looking back at the footage about what happened and how they approached an incident.
I am concerned that I didn’t do a great job of explaining the reasoning behind this recommendation in
our meeting, so I am reiterating the main points for the other side of the argument here just to be
sure. Section 9(2)(g) Official Information Act 1982
nformation Act 1982 In
addition, there is a strong body of work demonstrating that viewing the footage would likely lead to a
shift in the officer’s memory and subsequent reporting to include new information that was not
previous considered, while narrowing focus to only include what was captured in the footage.
Crucial y, these shifts in memory occur without awareness. An important consideration is what we are
hoping to achieve by al owing officers to revise the footage, and how it fits with the overarching goals
the Officia
of BWC implementation. (And also consideration of what the overarching goals of the BWC
implementation are; our recommendations were based on the proposed goals, but if the goals
change, it is likely the recommendations wil need to change too).
“If it is important to know
exactly what happened, then viewing the video footage wil always
be more accurate than the account of an officer, in which case the officer does not need to
see the footage If it is important to know
an officer’s perception of an event, then it is
important to preserve his memory untainted by viewing the video footage. In neither case is
Pursuant to
viewing the video footage recommended.” (Pezdek, 2015; available at this link).
Restricting viewing would also overcome the administrative burden on officers of reviewing and
categorising footage—someone removed from the situation would need to take responsibility for
managing the footage.
Given the compel ing ar
Released guments on both sides, it is likely that whatever option is chosen there wil be
some blow-back–either from frontline staff and the Police Association, or from the public, PPP, and
interested commentators. Without appropriate framing and explanation, the former option has the
potential to completely derail BWC implementation (which has happened overseas), while the latter
has the potential to erode public trust and confidence. Whichever option is chosen, we wil need to
provide a strong justification for the choice. For the purposes of the trial, the best approach may be to
simply see what happens, and let the results shape further consideration of these issues.
Recommendation 9: Editing and redacting footage. This was deemed to be a non-issue, with the
original footage always retained. This would need to be communicated to the public to ensure trust in
the footage.
No other major issues arose.
Page
2 of
2