Police National Headquarters
180 Molesworth Street, PO Box 3017,
Wel ington
Phone +64 4 474 9499
IR-01-23-17541
3 July 2023
Cody C
[FYI request #23009 email]
Dear Cody
Request for information
Thank you for your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request of 5 June 2023, in which
you asked for:
“I am looking to understand under what circumstances, broadly speaking, would
Police ordinarily accept / decline admissibility of evidence from member of the
public, particularly where they are using their own camera.
Any guidelines or similar would be appreciated, alongside any common
examples that are both acceptable or unacceptable. e.g., using CCTV footage
from a dairy in a ram raid might ordinarily be okay but footage recorded from
another screen and then uploaded onto Facebook where someone recorded it
on their smart phone might not.
I have some more specific questions I am looking to answer to help refine this
request:
1) Could Police - in theory - accept evidence of a stationery traffic offence from
a member of the publics smartphone camera, e.g. a photograph of a vehicle
parking on a footpath? What chal enges might this present? Noting that Local
Government tends not to accept this method, for their own reasons, instead
requiring the public to cal in every offence for a parking compliance officer to
attend.
2) How does this differ for "dashcam" footage, e.g. a video provided to Police of
a vehicle crossing the centre line?
3) How does this differ in practise from a *555 call for a non-stationery (moving)
traffic offence observed by a member of the public, e.g. danagerous driving?
Noting that there is typical y no tangible evidence in this case, other than the
persons own word.”
My responses to your questions are provided below:
1) Could Police - in theory - accept evidence of a stationery traffic offence from a
member of the publics smartphone camera, e.g., a photograph of a vehicle
parking on a footpath? What challenges might this present? Noting that Local
Government tends not to accept this method, for their own reasons, instead
requiring the public to call in every offence for a parking compliance officer to
attend.
The Police may accept the information as stated, however every case is treated on its
own merits by the Police member attending. The matter may not reach a threshold that
requires further investigation or action. This wil depend on the seriousness of what is
alleged and the need for any action at that time.
For example, if the vehicle is no longer on the footpath, it may not require any action at
that stage.
2) How does this differ for "dashcam" footage, e.g. a video provided to Police of a
vehicle crossing the centre line?
Al video or photographic footage can to be considered but it is up to the attending Police
member to assess what weight they put on any evidence, and the appropriate Police
response.
3) How does this differ in practise from a *555 call for a non-stationery (moving)
traffic offence observed by a member of the public, e.g. danagerous driving?
Noting that there is typical y no tangible evidence in this case, other than the
persons own word.”
In these cases, information is collected, whether it is from what people saw as a potential
witness, or what video footage has been col ected. It wil then be assessed whether it
reaches a threshold that is serious enough to require any Police investigation or action.
Yours sincerely
David Kirby
Detective Inspector
National Criminal Investigations Group
New Zealand Police
