Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
Recent CCTV footage of a disabled man being allegedly assaulted by Victorian police in his front yard has raised questions around transparency and accountability for policing processes and legislative requirements.
Following the strong reactions to that alleged assault, Lawyers Weekly spoke to criminal defence lawyers at the coal face about how legislatively-ingrained body-worn video (BWV) would change daily practices and, potentially, improve community trust and confidence in law enforcement.
“If a device is not activated from the get-go, then the evidence in court will be limited and could potentially be deceiving,” she explained.
“If it was mandatory, devices would have to be activated as soon as, for example, a statement is taken or a given scenario where evidence is being gathered.”
The availability of such recording resources in police stations across the state, and even the country, is necessary, she said, especially when considered from a social justice perspective.
“It is important that police have enough resources such that every local command area, and every senior constable who makes diary records and entries in their notebooks, has that device and activates it as a mandatory tool, so that there is fairness when there’s evidence presented to the magistrate or judge, and the jury,” she said.
Armstrong Legal police accountability associate David Porter said while there are obvious benefits to the transparency of general-duty police on patrol wearing cameras, such as having additional objective evidence, he questioned whether BWV would increase accountability or simply discourage the bringing of cases where recordings are not favourable to the prosecution.
“Transparency without accountability is impunity, and there is a very real risk that community expectations of police are becoming more and more distant from what police internal standards are,” he said.
“Transparency, such as seeing video footage like what we have seen over the past week, does not necessarily mean there will be disciplinary or legal consequences for the officers involved, nor any established breach of legislation.”
Communication is key, Mr Porter surmised, in ensuring the wide community is still seen as the most important stakeholder in policing decisions.
“BWV can be an important tool in creating community confidence, in considering the difference between transparency and accountability. If BWV shows the public commonplace, modern policing practices, and the community does not think those practices are justified, then BWV can create a greater public relations problem for the police force,” he said.
Such community confidence, following incidences like that seen in Victoria last week, is crucial moving forward, Ms Shah added.
“Even innocent members of the community are sometimes too afraid of the police, and do not want to deal with police, because of damaging news they may have seen or heard whereby officers may be breaching their duties under LEPRA [Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002], and potentially getting away with it,” she said.
Civilians are, at the end of the day, in the hands of law enforcement, Ms Shah concluded: “If the law suggests that such devices be mandatorily activated, there would not be questions about abuses of power [during interviews and other scenarios].”
Jerome Doraisamy is the managing editor of Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader. He is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in New South Wales, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.
You can email Jerome at:
Get breaking news
Jerome Doraisamy
