GUIDANCE FOR THE

POLICE USE OF
BODY-WORN VIDEO
DEVICES
POLICE AND CRIME
STANDARDS DIRECTORATE

JULY 2007
Acknowledgements

The Police and Crime Standards Directorate (PCSD) is The PCSD would finally like to express gratitude to those
grateful to the author of this document, Chief Inspector who have further assisted with the formulation of the
Martin Goodall. policies and specifications contained within this
document, namely:
The PCSD extends special thanks to Chief
Superintendent Morris Watts and the officers and staff Esther George – Crown Prosecution Service
of Plymouth Basic Command Unit (BCU), Devon and Neil Cohen – Home Office Scientific Development
Cornwall Constabulary, who have conducted extended Branch
use trials of body-worn video as part of the Plymouth Adam Hunter – Home Office Scientific Development
BCU Head Camera Project, and in particular the project Branch
team comprising:
Katherine Price – Information Commissioner’s Office
Chief Inspector Tamasine Matthews Jo Wilkinson – National Policing Improvement Agency
Sergeant Oliver Tayler Kevin Smith – National Policing Improvement Agency
Constable Zoë Bateman Colin Monks – Police Federation of England and Wales
Jon Smith Rob Somer – Process Evolution
The PCSD is also grateful to the following, who have The following forces have contributed to the examples
coordinated local practical trials of the equipment and of good practice contained within this document:
assisted with the formulation of policy:
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Inspector Mike Cox – Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
Sergeant Paul Hamilton – Northumbria Police
Lancashire Constabulary
Sergeant Lee Burns – West Midlands Police
Northumbria Constabulary
West Midlands Police
West Yorkshire Police

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 1

Contents

Acknowledgements 1
Foreword 5
Executive summary 6
Key features of body-worn video 7
Evidential quality 7
Time saving 7
Public order policing 7
Firearms deployments 7
Domestic abuse 8
Anti-social behaviour 8
Professional development 8
Implementation issues 8
Legal requirements 9
Relevant legislation 9
Data Protection Act 1998 9
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 11
Freedom of Information Act 2000 11
Human Rights Act 1998 12
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 12
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 12
Crown Prosecution Service advice 12
Evidential statements 13
Technical requirements 14
Use of BWV in private dwellings 14
Technical failure 15
Capturing first account evidence 15
Significant witness interviews 15
Transcription 16
Standard operating procedures 17
Objectives 17
BWV equipment 17
Training 17
Equipment issue 18
Recording an incident 18
Partial recordings 19
Stop and search and stop and account 20
Selective capture and bookmarking 20
Witness first accounts 21
Scene review and premises searching 22
Limitations on use 23
Audit trail 23
Production of exhibits 23
Provision of copies for the defence 24

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 3

 Storage, retention and deletion 24
Maintenance of equipment 24
Tactical options 25
Future developments 25
Professional Standards Departments (PSDs) – working practices 26
Use of BWV and potential misconduct 26
Officers using BWV 26
Misconduct identified during review 26
The receipt of complaints against police 26
Investigation of complaints against police 27
Local resolution 27
Investigation by the PSD 27
Health and safety risk assessment 28
Plymouth BCU Head Camera Project 30
Background 30
Aims and objectives 30
Equipment used 31
Back office facility 31
Additional benefits to date 32
Problems encountered and resolutions 33
Operational feedback 34
Plymouth BCU Commander 34
Plymouth CPS 34
Technical specifications 35
Camera and video-recording system 35
System overview 35
Mandatory requirements 35
Desirable features and considerations 37
Archive and retrieval system 38
System overview 38
Mandatory requirements 38
Desirable features and considerations 39
Glossary 40
Resource disk (list of contents) 41
Letter to body-worn video suppliers from HOSDB Sandridge (29 March 2007) 42
Appendix A: Plymouth Head Camera Project – Body-Worn Video Recording System (Head Cameras):
National Pilot, Final Report, April 2007 43

4 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Foreword

The use of body-worn video has the potential to Individuals under arrest have been more likely to plead
improve significantly the quality of evidence provided by guilty at an early stage in the justice process when
police officers, police community support officers confronted with the clear recorded evidence of their
(PCSOs) and public bodies within the criminal justice actions, saving significant time for all sectors. The video
system in the drive to reduce crime and the fear of crime has proved highly beneficial in supporting victims of
and increase the proportion of offences brought to domestic violence. For the first time, the attitude of the
justice. offender at the time of police attendance can be relayed
to court, reinforcing the need for effective action and
Police forces have utilised video evidence for several
support.
years through local CCTV, police vehicle systems and
hand-held devices employed during specific operations. Increased use of these cameras has also allowed officers
Body-worn equipment will enable the Police Service to to develop their personal skills, aiding the professional
make far greater use of video evidence due to its development of newly appointed staff and their more
increased availability on the front line, as officers will be experienced colleagues who can review their
able to maintain the use of their hands and peripheral performance at operational incidents in detail. It has also
senses while recording an incident. been used to negate malicious complaints.
‘A picture paints a thousand words’, and a video This manual has been produced following extended trials
recording from the scene of an incident will capture conducted by Plymouth BCU, whose efforts will no
compelling evidence of the activities of suspects and will doubt prove to be of great value in assisting other areas
enable the raw emotion and action from the scene to be of the Police Service when they implement this
replayed in the courts in a manner that could never be technology.
captured in written statements. The courts can see and
hear the incident through the eyes and ears of the officer
at the scene, thereby gaining a real understanding of the
actions of the accused and the challenges that face the
Police Service today.

Tony McNulty MP
Minister of State for Security, Baroness Scotland
Counter Terrorism and Police Minister of State for Crime Reduction

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 5

Executive summary

The use of video in this context provides a compelling conducted by Process Evolution is included as Appendix
evidential record as to the conduct of suspects, and A to this manual.
police evidence gathering has become a specialist role
This guidance has also been informed by consultations at
within many policing operations, particularly in public
national level with the Information Commissioner’s
order situations. However, while the evidence gathered
Office (ICO), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Home
by hand-held video and CCTV systems is highly
Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB),
beneficial to prosecutions and in the prevention of
National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and
crime, the manner in which such equipment is employed
various Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
can be restrictive, discouraging a wider use of video
lead officers. The aim of this manual is to demonstrate
evidence.
the benefits and drawbacks of these systems in capturing
The police use of body-worn video (BWV) commenced video evidence of police officers, police community
with small-scale tests of a head-mounted video system in support officers (PCSOs) and other partners in the wider
Plymouth BCU (Devon and Cornwall Constabulary) in police community.
2005. First significant deployments of BWV were during
BWV provides significant advantages over normal hand-
the Police Standards Unit (PSU) led Domestic Violence
held video recording systems, primarily the fact that users
Enforcement Campaign (DVEC) in February and March
do not need the support of a minder to engage in
2006. The system was recognised as having the ability to
recording, as their peripheral vision is not hindered by
significantly improve the quality of the evidence
the use of the equipment and both hands remain free.
provided by police officers at incidents.
This encourages a wider use of video evidence than was
Media coverage of the system led to significant national previously possible.
and international interest, and other BCUs commenced
The recordings from BWV units provide a fairly
small-scale use of the system. The PSU found that BWV
complete record of what the officers saw and heard at
has significant potential to improve the effectiveness of
incidents. There are, however, limitations to the
operational policing and has therefore sought to identify
technology and users must be aware that some aspects of
the most effective practice in the use of this technology.
incidents that are vital to the evidence for the offence
Through this guidance manual it seeks to standardise
may occur out of camera view, that sound recordings
practices in the use of the technology, provide guidance
may not be complete or that other sounds at the scene
on the legal and procedural framework and identify the
may block significant statements by those present.
appropriate technical specifications to make the
Importantly, there is the further possibility of other
technology fit for policing purposes in England and
technical failures or operator errors that may hinder the
Wales.
production of the recorded evidence. Thus users need to
In October 2006 Plymouth BCU commenced an ensure that they remain mindful of standard evidence
extended use trial funded by local partners, with 50 head- gathering procedures at scenes and must not rely solely
mounted cameras to be used in as many operational on the BWV evidence to support their case.
situations as possible by the 300 trained staff in three
The ease of use of this technology is likely to encourage
sectors of the BCU. The PSU has utilised this local trial
much wider use of video evidence to support
as an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the
prosecutions in court. However, the expense and limited
technology for the Police Service nationally and to
operational availability of this equipment will
inform this practice guidance. The independent
undoubtedly mean that not all officers or PCSOs will be
evaluation of the Plymouth Head Camera Project
able to have access to BWV equipment, and forces must

6 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

be careful not to create an expectation that all officers will TIME SAVING
be able to have video equipment with them at all times. Using BWV at incidents has enabled officers to present
their evidence in a consistent and accurate manner. The
It is crucial that the wider use of such video evidence recording is produced as an exhibit and therefore the
should not take primacy over other types of officer has to spend less time recording the incident as a
evidence, such as statements from police officers or statement or in their pocket notebook. Another time-
other eyewitnesses. Police officers and other criminal saving effect of BWVs is an increase in guilty pleas,
justice agencies, particularly CPS prosecutors, must resulting in less time spent preparing court papers and
resist any suggestion that an absence of video images attending court. BWV recordings have also been shown
in any way weakens the strength of conventional to those wishing to make complaints about police actions
evidence used in a case. at the scene of or en route to incidents. In a number of
cases the complainants have reconsidered their
HOSDB have devised a technical specification for a complaint after this review, thus reducing investigation
police-ready BWV unit which is included within this time for unwarranted complaints.
manual. This specification was devised through
consultations with users both in Plymouth and in other PUBLIC ORDER POLICING
police areas where BWV has been in use. Managers As part of the Plymouth BCU trial, officers used the
should ensure that any future purchases are fully equipment during their Operation Talon public order
compliant with this specification. patrols in the city centre’s night-time economy district.
Offenders and their solicitors have, in the majority of
This guidance must be read in conjunction with the cases, accepted the evidence captured of public order
ACPO and Home Office Digital Imaging Procedure offences during the investigation when viewed the
(DIP) (2002)1 and the forthcoming ACPO Practice following day. Previously, the offender may have had no
Advice on Police Use of Digital Images.2 For ease of use, recollection of the incident and may have disputed the
some sections of these documents are reproduced in this allegation. This has resulted in swifter resolution of cases
guidance; in other sections links are provided as and fewer contested cases going to court, thereby reducing
footnotes to guide users to the relevant documents. officer time.
KEY FEATURES OF BODY-WORN VIDEO FIREARMS DEPLOYMENTS
EVIDENTIAL QUALITY During the trial period a BWV unit was in use by an
In providing traditional police evidence, an officer will authorised firearms officer of Lancashire Constabulary.
make a written record of the incident, including the The unit recorded a deployment to an incident where a
language and gestures that were used, as soon as possible Taser was used to subdue a man armed with a knife.
after the incident occurs. Using BWV, the incident is The BWV recorded fully the information received by the
recorded in real time and as precisely as possible, limited officer prior to arrival at the scene, the circumstances that
only by the field of view and audio range of the device. led to the officer’s use of the Taser and the aftercare
The evidence is therefore far more accurate than was given to the subject. BWV may therefore have the
previously possible, and doubts as to what was done or significant benefit of providing an accurate record of the
said by any person present can be minimised. justification for police use of firearms or less-than-lethal
weapons.

1 http://hosdb.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/docs/digimpro.pdf
2 DIP is currently under review, and version 2.0 is to be published together with the ACPO practice advice document

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 7

DOMESTIC ABUSE The technology is still relatively new and improvements
The evidence gathered using BWV at the scene of a are regularly made by the manufacturers; flexible service
domestic abuse incident has assisted greatly in supporting agreements may therefore be beneficial. Any
reluctant witnesses through the court process. In procurement process should also consider the technical
providing an exact record of the demeanour and language specification and health and safety aspects of this
of the accused, the disturbance throughout the scene and guidance, as well as the training requirements and views
the emotional effect on the victim, the use of BWV can of users related to providing new equipment for
significantly strengthen the prosecution case. operational uniform police officers and PCSOs. Forces/
BCUs should ensure that the equipment is simple to use
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR and maintain.
Officers using BWV at anti-social behaviour hotspots
Depending on the number of units in use within an area,
have noted that persons present significantly reduce the
the provision of this additional technology will probably
level of their behaviour when officers with head cameras
require support from a ‘back office’ facility or similar
attend, more so than just with the presence of a police
specialist support function. While this may be provided
officer or PCSO. The equipment can have a greater
through existing technical support functions, the
impact than street CCTV or vehicle-borne cameras as they
additional technology and evidence production functions
can be deployed at any position within the incident; those
may require additional or redeployed police staff. Wide
present quickly learn that the recordings include sound,
use of the technology will create a significant increase in
and BWVs are more obvious than other CCTV systems
the volume of data to be stored – either in the form of
that can blend into the background after a short time.
CD-ROMs or DVDs, on a RAID server or on force
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT networks.
BWV has been utilised by Professional Development Finally, the aim of BWV is to provide enhanced evidence
Units as a training aid for student officers. The ability to in court. It is therefore essential that the local CPS is
review their performance in detail after an incident is a consulted about the equipment and its use and that local
powerful tool for officers to highlight effective and courts have the ability to view the evidence when
ineffective actions. When reviewing their evidence, required. It is also recommended that force technical
experienced officers who have used the equipment have services or IT departments are consulted prior to any
also been able to assess their behaviour and can local implementation.
professionalise their performance accordingly.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Should a force or BCU consider implementing BWV
within their area, they must be aware of the technology,
support and storage issues associated with BWV (the
precise level and detail of support functions required will
depend on the level of BWV usage).

8 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Legal requirements

The Information Commissioner is the regulator of the

The use of BWV described in this guidance is ‘overt Act and has enforcement powers where it is suspected
use’. BWV cameras might be small, but they are not that provisions of the DPA have been contravened.
to be worn or used in a hidden or covert manner.
BCU managers should ensure that the use of the The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has been
cameras is widely advertised prior to commencement, contacted with regard to police use of BWV equipment.
and that their use is reiterated by officers wearing a While their guidance below has been provided in
sign/symbol and/or making a verbal announcement accordance with the DPA, compliance with the Act will
where possible to those persons who may be depend upon the manner in which the equipment is used
recorded. in practice, and they are obliged to consider any
complaints they receive to ascertain whether any breach
This guidance does not cover covert use of body- of the DPA has in fact taken place.
worn video devices.
Principle 1 of the DPA (fair processing) requires that
This section contains outlines of legislation for the data subject must be informed of:
consideration when implementing BWV at either BCU • the identity of the data controller;
or force level. Further details of this legislation and its
impact on local procedures can be found in the • the purpose or purposes for which the footage is
forthcoming ACPO Practice Advice on Police Use of intended to be processed; and
Digital Images and within the relevant legislation itself. • any further information that is necessary for
All digital images obtained for policing purposes are processing to be fair.
referred to as police information, and should be treated If possible, this information should be provided at
in accordance with the ACPO Guidance on the the time they are being recorded or, if this is not
Management of Police Information (2006)3 and the practicable due to an ongoing incident, then as soon
Code of Practice on the Management of Police as possible afterwards. As a general rule, where an
Information (2005). officer is in uniform and is clearly carrying or wearing
a camera, the ICO would consider that this condition
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
has been satisfied.
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
However, some versions of the equipment are quite
The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)4 is legislation that
discreet and would not necessarily be identified as
regulates the processing of ‘personal data’ or ‘sensitive
cameras by members of the public, especially from a
personal data’, whether processed on computer, CCTV,
distance. Members of the public may also be unaware
stills camera or any other media. Any recorded image
that the camera is capable of recording sound. In
that is aimed at identifying a particular person or learning
order to ensure ‘fair processing’, it is important that
about their activities is described as personal data and is
individual forces raise public awareness of the use of
covered by the DPA; this is therefore likely to include all
BWV in the relevant area, for example through the
images and speech captured using BWV.
local press and on force websites.

3 http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/MoPI%20Guidance_INTER_03.03.06.pdf
4 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 9

 – the use of street signs (see resource CD-ROM for
BWV users should consider the reasonable an example) in areas where recordings are likely to
expectations of the public. If a member of the public take place on a regular and concentrated basis
approaches an officer to ask a question, they may not (such as in city centres or on housing estates);
expect to be recorded, and it is good practice to
inform them that the camera is switched on. To judge – local community-based forums to advise residents
whether a member of the public would reasonably of the use of this technology.
expect to be recorded in a particular situation, • Recordings should only be made in situations where
officers may find it helpful to ask themselves whether the BWV wearer would previously have made a
they would normally use their pocket notebook in written record of the encounter.
that situation.
• Officers should, where possible/practicable,
With regard to the retention of footage that will not announce to the subject(s) of an encounter that video
be used as evidence, it is the data controller’s and audio recording is taking place using BWV.
responsibility to devise a flexible policy that takes into
account the ongoing relevance of different types of • Recordings should commence at the start of any
footage. It will be a matter of judgement in each case, deployment to an incident and should continue
since some footage may be relevant to the ongoing uninterrupted until the incident is concluded, either
monitoring of a situation, while other footage should because of resumption of normal patrolling or
be deleted immediately. because recording has commenced through another
video system (e.g. at a custody centre).
Recorded footage that is initially considered to be
‘non-evidential’ should not be retained beyond the • Recordings should not be made of general patrolling
time where it is reasonably expected that it may be duties unless this is part of a specific operation (e.g.
identified as being part of any investigation. The public order duties at football matches).
Home Office/ACPO CCTV guidance5 indicates that
• All recordings must be securely held in accordance
systems should retain footage for a period of 31 days
with force procedures. Access to recordings must be
for any investigation to become apparent, after which
controlled and only persons having the ‘operational
it should be deleted.
need’ to view specific incidents may view them.
Forces should be aware that individuals could make a
• All footage recorded by the BWV must also be
DPA subject access request or Freedom of
retained in accordance with personal data guidelines.
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request for any
Non-evidential recordings must be disposed of after a
footage that is retained.
maximum of 31 days (as per ACPO guidelines).
Any force or BCU wishing to use BWV in their area • A record must be made of the destruction of any
should consider undertaking the following steps in order non-evidential recording.
to comply with the requirements of the DPA. • Prior to disposal, all reasonable steps must have been
• Before any use of BWV, ensure that a series of ‘fair taken to ensure that the images are not required as
processing notices’ are utilised locally; for example: evidence in any case under investigation.
– a local media campaign to advertise the use of
BWV, using local newspapers and other media and
the force website;

5 http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/cctv/digitalcctvleaflet.pdf

10 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

• Evidential footage must be retained in accordance It is a requirement that the police are in a position to
with other requirements such as the ACPO Guidance disclose both used and un-used images and be able to
on the Management of Police Information (2006)6 demonstrate that this has been done. Deletion of any
and must be disposed of in accordance with those police-generated images (or a third party’s images in
timescales and guidelines. police possession) prior to their respective retention
periods may amount to a breach of the Act if they are
The sharing of BWV images is covered by the DPA, and
not then available for disclosure. Images that are relevant
reference should be made to the Act and to the ACPO
to an investigation must be retained in accordance with
Media Advisory Group guidelines7 to ensure that if any
the Code of Practice issued under Section 23 of the
images are shared with any agency or the media, then it is
CPIA (see Chapter 17 of the Disclosure Manual).
done lawfully. In the event that any images are to be
shared with the media for the purpose of identifying any The forthcoming ACPO Practice Advice on Police Use
person shown in the images, then care must be taken to of Digital Images will contain further information about
ensure that other persons shown in the recording whose this requirement. Police-generated digital images should
identity is not sought are obscured. be accompanied by a full audit trail, from the point of
capture of the image throughout the whole management
The DPA applies to internal police use of BWV as well
process – including when they are passed to the CPS or
as external use, and if devices are to be used for
the defence or if there is any supervised viewing.
monitoring staff or for regular spot checks then all
relevant staff will need to be made aware of this. For FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
further information, see the ‘Professional Standards The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)11 grants
Departments (PSDs) – working practices’ section. a general right to access to all types of recorded
For further information relating to the DPA see the information held by public authorities, which may
ACPO Data Protection Manual of Guidance (2006)8 and include digital images recorded by BWV.
the website of the ICO at www.ico.gov.uk The Act provides exemptions to the requirements to
disclose information. These include national security
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS
(Section 24), investigations or proceedings (Section 30),
ACT 1996
law enforcement (Section 31) and personal information
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 19969
(Section 40).
(CPIA) introduced the statutory test for disclosure of
material to the defence in criminal cases. Full details of For further information about the application of the
the disclosure test, the duties placed upon the FOIA to the Police Service and for further detail about
prosecution team and public interest immunity can be the above and other exemptions see the ACPO Freedom
found in the ACPO/Director of Public Prosecutions of Information Manual (2000).12
(DPP) Disclosure Manual.10

6 http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/MoPI%20Guidance_INTER_03.03.06.pdf
7 http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/magguidelines.pdf
8 http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/ACPODPMoGV1.06.pdf
9 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996025.htm
10 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section20/chapter_a.html
11 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000036.htm
12 http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/foipubv1.2.pdf

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 11

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984
The Human Rights Act 199813 brings the European Section 64A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into effect in 1984 (PACE) (as amended by Section 116 of the Serious
domestic law. Organised Crime and Police Act 200515) permits a
person to be photographed, with or without their
Article 6 of the ECHR provides for the right to a fair
consent, by a constable elsewhere than at a police station.
trial. All images from BWV have the potential for use in
The power is applicable if the person has:
court proceedings whether they provide information that
is beneficial to the prosecution or defence; they must • been arrested by a constable for an offence;
therefore be safeguarded by an audit trail in the same way
• been taken into custody by a constable after having
as other evidence that is retained for court.
been arrested for an offence, by a person other than a
Article 8 of the ECHR is the right to respect for private constable;
and family life, home and correspondence. Police forces
• been made subject to a requirement to wait by a CSO;
are required to consider this article when dealing with
or
recorded images, whether they were made in public or
private areas. Recordings of persons in a public place are • been issued with a fixed penalty notice by a constable,
only public for those present at the time, so those CSO or accredited person.
situations are therefore still regarded as potentially
Within Section 64A the definition of a photograph
private (R v Brentwood Borough Council ex parte Peck
includes a moving image (i.e. BWV). Other
[2003]). Recorded conversations between members of
circumstances in which BWV might be used to record
the public should always be considered private.
images are not covered by PACE, but there is also no
Users of BWV must consider Article 8 when recording provision within PACE that specifically prohibits the
and must not record beyond what is necessary for taking of photographs – whether moving or still –
policing purposes. If disclosing recordings for the without a person’s consent.
purpose of tracing suspects or witnesses, this article must
Code of Practice D of PACE relates to the identification
also be considered in tandem with the provisions of the
of persons by police officers and includes the use of
DPA.
video identification. If any BWV footage captured by the
REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT police is to be used to assist with the identification of
2000 suspects, then officers must ensure that the Code is
Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act followed.
2000 (RIPA)14 covers acts of directed and intrusive
CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE ADVICE
surveillance. The Act identifies the procedures and
The underlying principle of using BWV is that it can be
authorities required in these circumstances.
used as evidence. Therefore, advice from the Crown
This guidance is intended to provide direction in respect Prosecution Service (CPS) has been sought in order to
of the overt use of BWV by police officers and other law ensure that the gathering of BWV evidence is
enforcement staff during the course of their daily satisfactory and will be admissible in court.
patrols. Therefore the provisions of RIPA are not
applicable to the use of BWV provided it is used overtly
in the manner described in this guidance.

13 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm
14 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm
15 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/50015--k.htm#116

12 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

When producing any form of digital evidence it is incident is likely to provide better evidence than an
essential that the ACPO and Home Office Digital officer’s recollection and subsequent note or statement
Imaging Procedure (DIP) (2002)16 and the forthcoming making.
ACPO Practice Advice on Police Use of Digital Images
If the recording covers the whole incident, it is not
are followed.
essential for the officer(s) to produce a written statement
The BWV units used within trials to date contain an detailing the entire nature of the interactions contained
internal hard drive (or similar initial storage medium) to in the video footage, as this is avoidable duplication. If
digitally record the incident, and the CPS agrees that the two officers are present at the same incident and one of
retention of the whole device for court purposes is not the officers records the whole incident while the other
practical due to cost, storage space availability and the actually deals with the incident, the resultant recording
possibility of overwriting or corruption during can be utilised as the evidence for both officers as long as
operational use. it shows the entire incident. The recording officer should
also make notes of the incident to cover any additional
Operators must therefore create a master copy disk that
points that may be outside the view of the camera as well
must be a ‘bit-for-bit’ copy of the original recording of
as all evidential information required in the event of
the information contained on the hard drive. This master
technical failure.
copy must be secured in such a manner that its evidential
integrity is preserved throughout the court process. The statement must include details of the evidential
audit trail for the production of the master disk, and in
In accordance with the DIP, a master copy disk can
order to assist prosecution and defence solicitors it is
therefore be created on a ‘write once, read many’
advisable that the statement producing the exhibit
(WORM) media; this should then be sealed and retained
contains a summary paragraph outlining the evidential
as an evidential exhibit item in accordance with local
aspects of the incident and the recording. The texts for
force policy and procedures. Access to this disk should
suggested model statements are shown on the
only be allowed in accordance with force procedures.
associated resource disk.
Therefore, officers should also create a working copy
from the original media for use during the investigation It is recommended that the officer records each incident
process, for making notes and disclosures. in its entirety, from the time of deployment to the
conclusion. If there is any break in the recording, details
In the event that the quality of the original recording
and the reason for this must be included in the officer’s
(video or audio) requires enhancement, this work should
statement.
be undertaken using the working copy. At the conclusion
of the processing, a copy must be sealed as a master BWV users must be mindful that although the recording
version of the incident post-enhancement. Statements shows significantly greater detail than could be previously
dealing with the technical enhancement process and an possible, the recording contains only what is in the range
audit trail will be required. of the camera and sound that is picked up by the
microphone. Some offences, such as breaches of the
EVIDENTIAL STATEMENTS Public Order Act 1986, require evidence that a person
One of the perceived advantages in using BWV was put in fear. This evidence must still be included in the
equipment is that the user is able to produce a ‘perfect statements of those who were present and, if applicable,
memory’ of everything they saw and heard at the the BWV user.
incident they have attended. Any video recording of an

16 http://hosdb.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/docs/digimpro.pdf

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 13

For some minor offences, such as the offence of being Having to purchase specialist software to replay the
drunk and disorderly, the expert opinion evidence evidence when it is disclosed to defence solicitors may
requires the officer to provide a number of observations render the recorded evidence unusable for the intended
(smell of intoxicants, eyes glazed, etc.) to prove purpose, requiring lengthy transcriptions or the need to
drunkenness that may not be effectively shown by the routinely enhance or alter the evidence. This should be
recorded BWV evidence. In such cases, the officer may avoided, as it will cause additional expense.
decide that a short written statement is the more
If police forces or BCUs are intending to make
expedient way to provide the evidence and that the BWV
significant or regular use of this type of technology, they
evidence can be retained as unused material. Each case
must ensure that their local CPS is equipped and able to
should be considered on its merits to enable the officer
review the footage, and that the courts in their area are
to give the evidence in the most effective manner.
able to show the footage in any hearings.
Users must also be mindful that, although the recording
shows significant detail, some evidential information may USE OF BWV IN PRIVATE DWELLINGS
take place out of view or hearing of the camera or If a BWV user is called to attend a private dwelling,
microphone. This could be a result of poor alignment or provided this is an incident that would normally be the
because of the nature of the incident, for example where subject of a pocket notebook entry, the officer should
the main subject of the recording is talking or indicating record the incident using BWV in the same way in which
to someone else outside the field of view. It is important any other incident is recorded.
that this information is recorded in statements so that the As previously stated, it is a legal requirement under the
full detail of the evidence can be properly considered in DPA to provide ‘fair processing information’. Therefore
any subsequent proceedings. the BWV user should, where practicable, make a general
In considering the above, it may prove helpful, if verbal announcement that recording is taking place; this
practicable, for the user to provide some kind of running is particularly relevant when in a private dwelling.
commentary detailing the evidence that is not present in Recording should only be used when it is relevant to the
the video (e.g. distinctive smells such as cannabis) to incident, and users should be mindful of the rights of
assist subsequent viewers. individuals to respect for a private and family life under
Article 8 of the ECHR.
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
In some circumstances officers may find that one party
In order to ensure that the evidence is appropriate for
may object to the recording taking place, for example
use in court, it is desirable that the unit should record and
where there are allegations of domestic abuse. In such
play video and audio data in the same format – without
circumstances officers should continue to record while
any loss of data through compression and replay options.
explaining the reasons for recording continuously; these
In order to meet disclosure requirements, it is also reasons might include:
desirable that the video/audio record and replay format
• that an incident has occurred requiring police to
is a common ‘industry standard’ format that will be
attend;
available to the vast majority of defence solicitors
through universally available, computer software. • that the officer’s continued presence might be
required to prevent a breach of the peace or injury to
any person;

14 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

• the requirement to secure best evidence of any possible evidence through a traditional statement. It is
offences that have occurred, whether this is in writing therefore crucial that users of BWV remain attentive
or on video, and that the video evidence will be more throughout the incident and, if required, are able to recall
accurate and of a higher quality and therefore in the evidential aspects of the encounter.
interests of all parties;
If the event is partially recorded prior to the equipment
• that continuing to record would safeguard both failure, the officer should produce the recorded evidence
parties, with a true and accurate recording of any as usual and provide a statement covering the entire
significant statement made by either party and of the incident, including the reason, if known, for the
scene; equipment failure. If the reason for failure is not
apparent then a statement from a suitable engineer
• that the incident may reoccur in the immediate
should be obtained at the earliest opportunity.
future; or
This is equally true for cases where the camera is
• that continuing to record will safeguard the officer
knocked out of alignment or dislodged during the
against any potential allegations from either party.
incident. Officers must ensure that they do not rely solely
It is therefore recommended that officers continue to on the equipment to gather their evidence – they must
record where incidents are occurring or allegations of a still be able to provide an evidential account proving any
criminal nature have been made. However, if it becomes alleged offence without reliance on any BWV recording.
clear that the incident is not a police matter (e.g. not an
allegation of a suspected or potential offence) and as CAPTURING FIRST ACCOUNT EVIDENCE
such would not have been the subject of an entry in an During any incident it is likely that BWV users may
officer’s pocket notebook, then the officer should cease record the first account of victims and/or witnesses.
recording. In such circumstances it is recommended that Therefore witnesses may be permitted to review their
the officer make a verbal announcement that the account prior to the making and signing of any written
recording is being stopped prior to stopping the video. statement. Care must be taken to ensure that witnesses
The officer should also announce that, if any incident are not permitted to review any aspect of the recording
begins while the officer is still present, then recording will other than their own initial account. Their statement
resume immediately. Footage taken in private dwellings should also refer to the viewing of the recording of their
should be deleted as soon as practicable if it is not first account.
relevant to any criminal investigation or prosecution. This is equally applicable for police officers and staff,
In relation to incidents of repeat domestic violence, who may refer to the BWV recording prior to making
retention for longer periods may be considered necessary any statement.
in order to protect victims and their children or to
provide evidence for courts to consider in respect of SIGNIFICANT WITNESS INTERVIEWS
proceedings such as non-molestation orders. The video or audio recording of key or significant
witness interviews is recommended by the ACPO
TECHNICAL FAILURE Murder Investigation Manual in cases of serious crime.
In the event of a technical failure of BWV equipment, An investigator can also consider video or audio
either through accidental damage or malfunction, it is recording significant witness interviews in any other
vital that the officer is still able to provide the best serious case where it may be helpful to the case.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 15

For further information and guidance on conducting
interviews with key or significant witnesses see the
ACPO Investigative Interviewing Guidance.
BWV can be used for such interviews as long as the
practice advice relating to these procedures is followed
and the interviews are conducted without distractions
such as passers-by or background interference. In such
cases the witness would be asked to provide a short
statement to confirm that the evidence provided by them
on video is accurate.
If the equipment is used to record a witness’s evidence-
in-chief under the special measures provisions outlined
in the joint publication Achieving Best Evidence in
Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Vulnerable or
Intimidated Witnesses, including Children,17 the normal
procedures for that situation must be followed. Care
must be taken in particular to ensure that the setting for
such recordings is appropriate and that specially trained
staff conduct the interview. In general, however, where
other more appropriate or bespoke technology exists for
these purposes then it should be used instead of BWV.

TRANSCRIPTION
As the BWV recording is an exhibit produced by a police
officer, there should not be a need for it to be
transcribed. Only in exceptional circumstances should a
transcription be required, for example if the sound is of
a poor quality, or if the speech contains a high degree of
slang or is in a foreign language, in which case the
services of a translator should be obtained.
Even when the exhibit concerned has been the subject
of an audio transcription, the video contains a great
degree of visual information such as actions and gestures
that put the language into context. Hence, even if a
transcript is provided, the video exhibit should still be
shown in conjunction with the written text.

17 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/achieving-best-evidence/guidance-witnesses.pdf?view=Binary

16 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Standard operating procedures

The use of BWV devices must complement the use of BWV EQUIPMENT
other video and digital evidence gathering devices within BWV equipment provided for police users should be
forces. The procedures below should be considered a compliant with the recommendations in the ‘Technical
minimum standard for the use of BWV devices; they specifications’ section of this guidance. Equipment
should be used as a basis for force operating procedures should be password-protected so that unauthorised users
or standing orders related to the use of this equipment. cannot access recordings and so that only administrative
users are able to delete images after they have been saved
These procedures have been designed with regard to the
to a suitable WORM media for evidential purposes or
current legislation and guidance for the use of overt
retention in accordance with the Code of Practice on the
video recording of police evidence. Before
Management of Police Information (2005).
implementation, BCUs must consider the impact of the
BWV on the force IT network and the need to store a
TRAINING
significant volume of recorded digital images on a server
In order to use BWV equipment, officers should receive
or as CD-ROMs or DVDs.
training in all the necessary technical aspects of the
All recorded images are the property of the force or specific equipment being used. A training package for the
organisation that creates them and must be retained in equipment should include:
accordance with force procedures and the forthcoming
• legal implications
ACPO Practice Advice on Police Use of Digital Images.
They are recorded and retained for policing purposes – Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
and must not be shown or given to unauthorised persons
– Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
other than in accordance with specified exemptions.
– Data Protection Act 1998
OBJECTIVES
BWV is an overt method by which officers can obtain – Human Rights Act 1998
and secure evidence at the scenes of incidents and – Freedom of Information Act 2000
crimes. This procedure is intended to enable officers to
comply with legislation and guidance to create evidence – Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
for use in court proceedings. • local procedures
When used effectively, BWV can promote public – tactical options
reassurance while detecting and reducing crime and anti-
social behaviour. Recordings will provide irrefutable • equipment familiarisation
evidence that will improve the quality of prosecution – assembly
cases and may reduce the reliance on victim evidence,
particularly those who may be vulnerable or reluctant to – wearing
attend court. – use
Using recordings can also impact on the professionalism – securing of images
of the Police Service and on the professional
development of officers. Officers, trainers and
supervisors can utilise the equipment to review and
improve how incidents are dealt with.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 17

• practical use issues BCUs should ensure that a suitable issue and returns log
is available in order to show evidential continuity if
– when to commence and cease recording
required. A supervisory officer should issue equipment
– recording an incident to trained officers when appropriate to the operational
situation.
– creating master and working copy disks
When issued with the equipment the user must ensure
– using video to prepare statements
that it is working correctly prior to leaving the station.
– reviewing first accounts with witnesses This should include the following basic checks:
• evidential continuity • unit is correctly assembled;
• health and safety • recording picture is the right way up;
• diversity issues • sound recording level is appropriate to use;
• professional standards • date and time stamp is accurate.
At the successful conclusion of training, officers will be The user must record in the issue log, their pocket
locally authorised to use the equipment in operational notebook or similar that the checks were made and that
policing situations. This training does not replace full the unit was functioning correctly prior to patrol. The
optical evidence gathering training. Officers who have officer should then set the unit to standby mode so that
completed the BWV training are not fully trained in the unit is ready for use as and when required.
optical evidence gathering and must only be used in
situations appropriate to the training that they have RECORDING AN INCIDENT
received. After issue, the decision to record or not to record any
incident remains with the user. The user must be mindful
A record of successful training should be maintained in that failing to record an incident is likely to require
force or BCU personnel records and resource explanation in court. Therefore, if the user is present at
management staff should be informed of the new skills; an evidential encounter, they must record the incident.
these can then be entered into command and control
systems so that appropriate deployment can be made Recording must be incident-specific: users should not
when necessary. indiscriminately record entire duties or patrols and must
only use recording to capture video and audio at
A PowerPoint presentation detailing a suggested training incidents that would normally be the subject of pocket
package, together with lesson plans to assist instructors, notebook entries, whether or not these are ultimately
are included on the attached resource disk to inform and required for use in evidence. There are some instances
assist BCUs that are planning to implement this when recording should not be undertaken, and further
technology. guidance on when not to record is included later in
this section.
EQUIPMENT ISSUE
When not in use, all equipment must be securely stored All recordings have the potential to be used in evidence,
in a suitable location within the police station. even if it appears to the user at the time of the incident
that this is unlikely (e.g. a stop and search with a negative

18 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

result). Therefore it is important that all recordings are Unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise (see
treated as evidential in the first instance – until it is below), recording must continue uninterrupted from the
confirmed otherwise. commencement of recording until the conclusion of the
incident or resumption of general patrolling. It is
It is evidentially important to record as much of an
advisable that the officer continues to record for a short
incident as possible. Recording should begin at the
period after the incident to clearly demonstrate to any
earliest opportunity at the start of an incident, so users
subsequent viewer that the incident has concluded and
should commence recording:
that the user has resumed other duties or activities.
• when deployed to an incident by the control room, a
Recording may also be concluded when the officer
supervisor or other source; or
attends another area such as a custody centre where other
• as soon as the user becomes aware that any other recording devices are able to take over the recording.
encounter is likely to be the subject of a pocket
Prior to concluding recording, the user should make a
notebook entry.
verbal announcement to indicate the reason for ending
At the commencement of any recording, the user should, the recording. This should state:
where practicable, make a verbal announcement to
• the date, time and location; and
indicate why the recording has been activated. If possible,
this should include: • the reason for concluding recording.
• the date, time and location; Once a recording has been completed, it becomes police
information and must be retained and handled in
• the nature of the incident to which the officer is
accordance with the Code of Practice on the
deployed; and
Management of Police Information (2005). Therefore
• confirmation to those present that the incident is now any recorded image must not be deleted by the BWV
being recorded using both video and audio. user and must be retained as required by the code of
practice. Any breach of the code may render the user
If the recording has commenced prior to arrival at the
liable to disciplinary action or adverse comment in
scene of an incident, the user should, as soon as is
criminal proceedings.
practicable, announce to those persons present that
recording is taking place and that actions and sounds are PARTIAL RECORDINGS
being recorded. Specific words for this announcement There may be occasions where an incident is only
have not been prescribed in this guidance, but users partially recorded, such as through technical failure, the
should use straightforward speech that can be easily equipment being knocked, covered or dislodged during a
understood by those present, such as “I am video struggle or through the nature of the incident where the
recording you”, “I am video recording this incident” or camera view is restricted. There may also be occasions
“everything you say and do is being recorded on video”. where the sound recording is unclear or verbal responses
Wherever practicable, users should restrict recording to are difficult to hear because of other more prominent
the areas and persons necessary in order to obtain sounds such as police radio traffic or noise created by
evidence and intelligence relevant to the incident; they strong winds.
should attempt to minimise collateral intrusion on those
not involved.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 19

A partial video or audio recording will not in itself cause prohibited. Therefore, if requested, officers should
a case to fail at court, but other evidence will be needed consider whether it is necessary to record the encounter
to prove the case to the required evidential standards. with a BWV device.
In such cases the user must retain and produce any
Recording a stop and search or stop and account
recording that is created and then be able to provide a
encounter with BWV will:
statement detailing the other necessary evidence. Users
of BWV must therefore ensure that they gather and • record the conduct of the officer during the search,
retain evidence through normal (non-video) means and therefore safeguarding both parties and protecting the
must not become reliant on video recording for officer from false allegations;
provision of their evidence.
• enable the officer to secure the best possible evidence
Similarly, the existence of a recording will not in itself of any offences that are disclosed during the search;
prove all aspects of an offence, and users must be and
mindful to note – and be able to give evidence of –
• accurately record any disclosures made by the subject.
factors not visible in the recording, such as emotions or
details that occur outside the range of the camera. In the event that the subject of an encounter requests
that the BWV be switched off, the user should ensure
STOP AND SEARCH AND STOP AND ACCOUNT that the subject is aware of the above points. They
The conduct of any ‘stop and search’ or ‘stop and should also consider advising the subject that:
account’ process must comply with the relevant
legislation and codes of practice. They must be carried • any non-evidential footage is only retained for 31 days,
out with due regard to the sensitivities of the person in accordance with the ACPO guidelines and
being stopped and any local community tensions the DPA;
surrounding the use of such powers by police. Recording • this information is therefore restricted and cannot be
of searches using video must not be carried out if the disclosed to third parties without their express
search is an ‘intimate’ or strip search and if the search authority unless prescribed by law; and
requires removal of more than the outer clothing.
• recorded data is police information and that it can be
A video recording does not replace the need for a written accessed on request in writing in accordance with
‘record of search’ to be completed by the officer and the FOIA.
given to the person stopped or searched at the time or
within the specified time period. It is then for the user to consider on a case-by-case basis
whether or not to switch the recording off. If the
BWV users are reminded that although officers equipment is turned off at the subject’s request and items
conducting stop checks must ask for personal details, are then found that may be subject of further
persons searched are not obliged to give their name, investigation or proceedings, recording should then
address and date of birth to the officer conducting a resume in order to capture the subsequent evidence,
search. In such cases, officers must record a description thereby overriding the subject’s request.
of the person searched as part of the search record.
There is currently no specific power within PACE to SELECTIVE CAPTURE AND BOOKMARKING
take a photographic or video image of a person during a Selective capture does not involve deletion of any
stop and search, although such action is not explicitly images; it is merely the user making a choice of when to

20 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

record and when not to record. It also describes the has recorded an encounter with a witness that includes
process of temporarily stopping and restarting recording their name and address, then this section should not be
in order to ‘bookmark’ the recorded footage. shown to the suspect or their legal representative.
There are no circumstances in which the unauthorised It is recognised that bookmarking is not always
deletion by the user of any images that have already been practicable due to the nature of incidents; therefore it
recorded can be justified, and any such action may result should only be attempted if the situation is calm and the
in legal or disciplinary proceedings. operator is easily able to undertake this procedure.

SELECTIVE CAPTURE Prior to any temporary suspension for the purpose

In general the BWV user should record entire encounters of bookmarking, the user should make a verbal
from beginning to end without the recording being announcement, for the purpose of the recording, to
interrupted; however, the nature of some incidents may clearly state the reason for briefly suspending recording.
make it necessary for the user to consider the justification Following the pause, the user should also announce that
for continuing to record throughout entire incidents. they have recommenced recording.

For example, the recording may be stopped in cases of a The bookmarking process will be demonstrated on the
sensitive nature or if the incident has concluded prior to final whole recording of the incident by a missing section
the arrival of the BWV user. In all cases the user should of a few seconds. In creating the master disk exhibit for
exercise their professional judgement in deciding court, the user must include all bookmarked sections for
whether or not to record all or part of an incident. In the incident as one complete master recording of
cases where the user does interrupt or cease recording at the incident.
an ongoing incident, they should record their decision in
WITNESS FIRST ACCOUNTS
a pocket notebook or similar log, including the grounds
If the BWV user is approached by victims or witnesses
for making such a decision.
who are giving their first account of the crime, the user
One such example of where ceasing recording may be may record the encounter using BWV. However, this
appropriate might be the following: a domestic assault should be considered against the needs of the individual,
has taken place in a private dwelling, the offender has with due sensitivity to the nature of the offence being
been removed from the scene, and the BWV user has reported. Any initial disclosure from victims and
recorded an initial account from the victim and recorded witnesses recorded by BWV should be treated as an
the scene of the alleged offence. In these circumstances evidential recording.
the user should consider whether continuing to record
Where possible, if multiple witnesses wish to give their
through statement-taking or other administrative
accounts to an officer with a head camera, then the
processes is appropriate or necessary.
bookmarking process should be adopted so that
BOOKMARKING individual accounts can easily be separated.
In recording an incident, it is likely that BWV users will Such recordings do not replace the need for formal
encounter victims, offenders and witnesses, as well as written statements from victims or witnesses, but they
recording the visual evidence at the scene itself. Selective can be used as supporting evidence for the statements
capture is a means by which users may separate and can also be considered as hearsay evidence and used
encounters with each of these types of person or in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Justice
occurrence in order to allow for easier retrieval and Act 2003.18
disclosure at a later time. For example, if a police officer

18 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030044.htm

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 21

Initial questioning of victims and witnesses should be to
obtain answers to significant questions that will assist the Initial accounts from the victim should be limited to
early investigation. Officers should use ‘open’ and ‘non- establishing:
leading’ questions to establish whether an offence has • any need for medical assistance;
been committed, assess the current risk to the victim
and witnesses, and identify and prioritise areas of the • the nature of the incident (to ascertain whether a
investigation. specially trained officer is required);
• the identity of the suspect (if known);
If this recording amounts to the victim’s first notes
or initial description of suspects, then they may refer • the location of the suspect (if known);
to the relevant section of the video when making • a first description of the suspect (for circulation
their written statement. Care must be taken to ensure if appropriate);
that only the witness’s own account is recorded and
then reviewed by the witness. They must not be • the time of the offence (in order to prioritise
allowed access, in any way, to other sections of the action);
recording. Nor must their account be prompted by • the location of the crime scene(s);
other persons not present at the scene. The extent of
any review by the witness must also be included in • any forensic opportunities, including information
their statement. for forensic medical examinations;
• any activities since the offence took place (to
In the case of victims of serious sexual offences, the user establish forensic evidence opportunities);
must consider the ACPO Guidance on Investigating • the identity of any other person(s) informed of
Serious Sexual Offences (2005). The victim’s explicit the incident by the victim (to ascertain early
permission for the video recording of the initial complaint); and
disclosure should be sought; if the victim is in any way
unsure of the need for the recording to be made, or is • the existence and identity of any witness(es) to the
uncomfortable with the thought of being recorded, then offence or to events immediately prior to or after
the user should not record using video. Recording the the offence.
initial disclosure to the police can have significant (ACPO Guidance on Investigating Serious Sexual
benefits to the progress of the subsequent investigation, Offences, Checklist 4)
as the content of the disclosure will be accurately
recorded and is easily passed to the investigating officer.
If the victim does not consent to being video recorded, SCENE REVIEW AND PREMISES SEARCHING
the user may consider the option of diverting the camera An additional use of BWV is to record the location of
away from the victim, disconnecting the camera or objects and evidence at the scene of a crime or during
obscuring the lens (e.g. placing the camera inside a the search of premises. This can be particularly beneficial
pocket) and then recording the encounter using only the in allowing the senior investigating officer an opportunity
audio facility. Again, the explicit consent of the victim to review scenes of serious crime or in effectively
must be obtained prior to beginning the recording. recording the positions of vehicles and debris at the
scene of a serious road traffic collision. This should be

22 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

treated as an evidential recording and where possible the • unit serial number/identifying mark;
officer should provide a ‘running commentary’ of factual
• day, date and time they took possession of the
information to assist later viewers.
equipment (time A);
When conducting a premises search, the BWV can be
• day, date, time and location they commenced
used to show the conduct of the search, to confirm
recording (time B);
where items were found and to record significant
statements made by persons present at the scene. • day, date, time and location they concluded recording
This could greatly assist the completion of search logs (time C);
and the evidence presented at court will be enhanced.
• day, date, time and location that master copy disk was
LIMITATIONS ON USE created and sealed (time D); and
BWV is an overt recording medium and can be used • whether any other person had access to or used the
across a wide range of policing operations. In all cases unit between time A, B or C and time D (if so
users and supervisors must use their professional a statement will be required from that person).
judgement with regard to recording. There are some
examples of situations where the use of BWV is not PRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS
appropriate; the following list is for guidance only and is In order for the recorded evidence to be presented in
not exhaustive. court, the master copy must be preserved as an exhibit.
It is recommended for reasons of security that this takes
• Intimate searches – BWV must not, under any
place as soon as practicable after the footage is recorded
circumstances, be used for the video or photographic
and that users do not start duty with a recording device
recording of intimate searches or in any other
that contains evidence of cases from a previous duty
circumstances where persons are in a state of undress.
or day.
• Legal privilege – users must be careful to respect legal
Creation of exhibits must follow the ACPO and Home
privilege and must not record material that is, or is
Office Digital Imaging Procedure (DIP) (2002)19 and a
likely to be, subject to such protections.
master disk in the form of a CD-ROM or DVD
• Private dwellings – while the use of video at the scene (WORM) computer disk containing all footage of the
of domestic violence incidents is covered in other incident must be created and sealed in accordance with
sections, users must consider the right to private and local force procedures. The master disk must be a ‘bit-
family life (Article 8 of the ECHR) and must not for-bit’ copy of the recording on the device. Users
record beyond what is necessary for the evidential should also create a working copy disk for use and review
requirements of the case. in preparing case papers and from which any disclosure
can be made to the defence.
AUDIT TRAIL
In order to prove the authenticity of recordings, it may It is not essential for the master disk to be created by the
be necessary for evidential continuity statements to be user who made the recording, although this method may
produced to confirm that any sealed master copy has not be preferred if the number of cameras or authorised
been tampered with in any way. The BWV operator must users in an area is small. An alternative in areas where
therefore include the following within their statement: large volumes of BWV evidence are being captured is to
have master disk exhibits created by a technical assistant.

19 http://hosdb.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/docs/digimpro.pdf

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 23

If the master disk is created by a second person, then Digital Images and the ACPO and Home Office Digital
evidence of continuity in procedure must be provided Imaging Procedure (DIP) (2002).20 (Note that the DIP is
through statements showing the audit trail of the currently under review and any amendments to that
equipment. document will affect the required procedure for data
obtained using BWV.)
Where more than one BWV device is present at the
scene of an incident or the area of the incident is also MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
covered by a CCTV system, the officer in the case must Equipment must be kept in good working order and it is
ensure that all available footage of the incident is secured the responsibility of each trained user to ensure that the
as exhibits in consideration of any defence arguments equipment is well maintained. Forces or BCUs that wish
that may be presented. to adopt the technology must be aware of the routine
maintenance requirements of the equipment prior to
Officers dealing with all cases involving video and
undertaking significant investment in the technology.
CCTV evidence must be mindful of the
‘Birmingham defence’, whereby: During the Plymouth Head Camera Project, 50 cameras
were purchased for use across three sectors of the BCU.
A video recording had not been disclosed to the
In order to service the cameras and to produce the
defence, even after specific requests for unused
evidential exhibits, the BCU set up a back office facility
material to be served were made. By the time of the
with two police staff, an office and additional IT
trial the tape could not be found and there was no
equipment. This represented a significant investment for
prospect of it being found. It was held that the
the BCU. Further detail can be found in the section on
prosecution was under a duty to disclose; that the
the Plymouth BCU Head Camera Project.
defence was prejudiced as a result of the non-
disclosure; and that a fair trial was therefore Units must be checked prior to deployment to ensure
impossible. that they are working correctly and this should be
confirmed when the unit is returned. In particular:
• Batteries should be charged prior to use and
PROVISION OF COPIES FOR THE DEFENCE
immediately recharged on return.
In general terms BWV recordings should be disclosed to
the defence in the same manner as other case exhibits. • The time and date settings should be synchronised
It should only be necessary to provide copy disks to the with a central clock.
defence in the case of actual or anticipated not guilty
pleas. Where Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, Summary • The camera lens should be clean and the picture
(CJSSS) schemes are in place, local consultation should clarity of suitable quality.
take place to ensure that while necessary information is • A suitable central maintenance staff member should
provided as swiftly as possible, resources (both time and be identified to ensure that the units are well
physical) are not wasted through the provision of maintained and that units are regularly (preferably
materials that will not be used. daily) downloaded so that recorded footage is not
retained on the units.
STORAGE, RETENTION AND DELETION
All recorded material must be stored and retained in a • A fault-reporting system should be in place, with an
secure manner in accordance with force procedures, the agreed contractual support and repair system
forthcoming ACPO Practice Advice on Police Use of with suppliers.

20 http://hosdb.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/docs/digimpro.pdf

24 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Tactical options

Attached to this manual is a DVD that includes example The technology used during the trial in Plymouth had
footage from the Plymouth Head Camera Project. some features that the project team believed could be
This will allow managers to examine the results that can improved upon in future versions. Firstly, having the
be achieved through the use of this technology. battery contained within the recording unit meant that
the units were ‘offline’ while their batteries were charging.
During the Plymouth project the cameras were used
Allowing for interchangeable batteries would require
to gather evidence across a wide range of policing
fewer units, since batteries could charge while units are
situations, including domestic abuse incidents, roads
in use.
policing, public order policing, stop and search, anti-
social behaviour patrols, and premises and crime scene Secondly, the method for storing footage on the units in
searching. The camera’s constant availability to users the trial was a hard drive contained within the unit.
enabled digital video evidence gathering across the whole Technology for removable media such as Flash memory
spectrum of operational policing and in essence there is cards would improve the turnaround time of the units
no limit to the types of situation where the equipment because users could simply remove and seal their
could be used – provided it is used overtly and in memory card for processing while the device is passed
accordance with this guidance. on to the next user. These two changes could combine to
make the BWV units more efficient.
In other areas of the country where trials have taken
place, BWV has been used by authorised firearms users,
where the cameras have the potential to capture the
justification for the police use of firearms and to show
how the officers reacted to these highly stressful
situations.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Future developments of this technology include the
ability for live streaming of the images from the BWV
unit to a nearby vehicle or command centre, or in
combination with automatic number plate recognition
technology. These types of technology are already
available through some suppliers and may be of
particular relevance to pre-planned operational situations
such as enforcement warrants and public order or
firearms policing, where the operational controller or
commander would benefit from live views from the front
line. Such developments must ensure that recording still
takes place and is not compromised through the
streaming or other additional processes.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 25

Professional Standards
Departments (PSDs)
(PSD) ––
Working practices
working practices
MISCONDUCT IDENTIFIED DURING REVIEW
Please note that this section relates to complaints
Recordings from incidents are likely to be reviewed by
about the conduct of police officers and staff and
supervisory staff, for example during the gatekeeping
not to complaints about the policy of whether to use
process for decision making prior to charge, or by police
BWV in different policing operations. Such
staff such as technicians during review to produce
complaints about the control and direction of the
exhibits.
force do not form part of the complaints system
monitored by the Independent Police Complaints If, during such a review, evidence is identified that
Commission (IPCC). Such a complaint should be indicates actual or potential misconduct, the person who
referred in the first instance to the local police has witnessed the conduct must bring this to the
BCU Commander for reply and/or further action attention of an officer who is not involved in the
as appropriate. recorded activity and who is of at least the rank of
inspector. This officer should consider the nature of the
recorded conduct and deal with the matter in accordance
The Police Service has well-established complaints and with force misconduct procedures.
discipline procedures. All police officers and staff are
subject to the code of conduct. Any member of the THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE
public, fellow officer or staff member is able to make a All complaints received from the public about the
complaint about the conduct of any officer or member conduct of any officer or member of staff must be
of staff, and all officers have a responsibility to secure recorded on the appropriate forms in accordance with
and preserve evidence of any complaint made about the existing national and force procedures.
conduct of officers and staff. Such complaints are
subject to independent review and scrutiny by the IPCC. Upon receipt of a complaint against an officer or a
member of police staff, the supervisor who initially deals
While BWV evidence is usually obtained and retained for with the complaint must ascertain whether a BWV
criminal proceedings, any recordings are also evidence in camera was used during the incident in question. Such
relation to complaints against police officers and staff, information should be readily available from the officers
and must be secured at the earliest opportunity. who attended the incident, and by studying local issue/
return logs and control logs.
USE OF BWV AND POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT
If BWV camera footage is available, it should be viewed
OFFICERS USING BWV by the supervisor receiving the complaint, who should
If an officer attends an incident and is recording ensure that the complainant is aware that the recording
evidence using a BWV camera, the whole incident should exists. The supervisor viewing the footage should make
be recorded in accordance with force procedures. Users master and working copy disks from the original
must not intentionally fail to record an incident by, for recording; these should be created and sealed in
example, turning away without good cause or deliberately accordance with force procedures.
obstructing the camera lens. Such calculated actions may
render the BWV user liable to a misconduct The supervisor may show the footage to the complainant
investigation. and provide a commentary of the facts shown in the
footage together with an explanation of any procedures
disclosed. If the complainant subsequently withdraws
their complaint, the matter should be fully recorded on

26 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

the force’s relevant forms and the complainant should Complainants have a right of appeal regarding the local
sign to confirm that their complaint has been withdrawn. resolution procedure. Therefore any footage relating to a
complaint that has been locally resolved must be retained
If, due to the timing of the complaint, the original
for at least 28 days following the incident concerned,
recording has been deleted but a master disk has been
in case an appeal is lodged.
created and is still in existence, this master disk must be
secured by the officer receiving the complaint and the INVESTIGATION BY THE PSD
PSD must be made aware of its location. If the master Upon receipt of a complaint that is to be investigated by
disk is part of an ongoing criminal investigation relating the PSD, the nominated investigating officer should
to the same incident, it must also be retained for the establish whether BWV evidence is available and must
complaint investigation. secure the evidence for the complaint investigation at the
If a force or BCU has established a back office facility, earliest opportunity.
then master and working copy disks should be requested Footage not directly relating to the incident(s) concerned
for the complaint investigation in accordance with local will not be obtained by the investigating officer, and open
procedures for obtaining the exhibits. access to any BWV database or library of footage will
Only footage relating to the incident that is the subject of not be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist
the complaint should be reviewed and retained. and authority is granted by the head of the PSD.
During the course of an investigation into a complaint,
INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST
the relevant BWV recording may reveal evidence of
POLICE
another minor misconduct that is not subject of a
LOCAL RESOLUTION complaint. It is then at the discretion of the investigating
The majority of complaints against police officers and officer to contact the supervisor of the individual
staff are dealt with through local resolution procedures. concerned in order to give appropriate ‘words of advice’
This includes those complaints that are immediately to the individual in question. Such action will also need to
resolved by supervisors. be recorded.
If a complaint is to be dealt with by means of local If, during an investigation into a complaint against police,
resolution and BWV footage is viewed by the local BWV footage reveals evidence of serious misconduct or
supervisor, then a record of this and a summary of that a criminal offence that is not the subject of the original
footage must be included on the complaints form prior complaint, then that will be investigated by the PSD in
to submission. line with current policies. Any subsequent or additional
In undertaking a local resolution, the local supervisor footage relating to the incident(s) will be secured by the
may consider it useful to show the footage captured by PSD for use in the investigation.
the BWV camera to the complainant. Such action should
be recorded and, while showing the recording, the
supervisor may also give procedural or legal explanations
of the activity shown in the recording.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 27

Health and safety
Professional Standards
risk assessment
Departments (PSD) –
Working practices
With the use of any equipment there is a legal
requirement for employers and employees to assess the While every care has been taken to consider all
level of risk when undertaking any task. The following possible risks, this list is not exhaustive and local risk
are considered to be risks associated with the use of managers and individual users should consider the
BWV by police officers and staff. possibility of additional risk factors and take
appropriate action to manage the identified risk.
Individual force risk assessment policies and
procedures will vary; the model risk assessment
below should therefore be appropriately adapted to
suit local policy and procedures. It is recommended
that this list of considerations be combined with
local risk assessments for general patrols or
operational risk assessments where BWV is being
deployed.

Hazard Specific risk Risk Control measures

level
Assault Wearer becomes target for Low Ensure that BWV is used at all incidents
assault through overt use of
Avoid confrontation unless necessary
video camera
Non-BWV users also present to be aware that
the head camera user may be targeted and to
assist where necessary
Injury Wearing the unit on the head can Low The head camera unit is lightweight and must
cause injury to the neck through be worn in accordance with the manufacturer’s
repetitive strain instructions
Users should remove the camera from their
head when not on patrol or at incidents
Injury Electric shock from equipment Low Equipment to be inspected prior to deployment,
if damaged any faults to be reported to a supervisor and
equipment not to be used if damaged
If damage occurs during deployment, stop using
the unit and return to station
Injury Entanglement with camera lead Low Ensure that leads are appropriately secured
prior to use; where possible, keep leads under
outer clothing or stab or equipment vests
Ensure that equipment cabling is ‘curled’ (like a
telephone cable) by the manufacturer to contain
the excess cabling in the neck area
Provide suitable physical break point in cable

28 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Hazard Specific risk Risk Control measures
level
Injury Camera becomes warm during Low Heat from the camera is considered to be low;
use if the unit does become hot, the user should
remove it and allow it to cool or return it to
store
Radio Interference between a BWV Low Ensure that BWV and radio are worn on
interference unit and Airwave police radio if different sides of body
worn in close proximity, causing
Compliance with Police Information
temporary radio failure
Technology Organisation Automotive
Conformance Specification 5 will prevent this
potential problem (see paragraph 3.3 of the
‘Camera and video recording system’ section of
the ‘Technical specifications’ section) and the
letter on page 42
Assault Strangulation of the user with Medium Leads to be routed beneath outer clothing or
the lead by an offender stab or equipment vests to ensure that they
cannot easily be seized by an assailant
Utilise appropriate officer safety techniques
to avoid close physical contact with other
persons/offenders
Provide suitable physical break point in cable
Assault Head injury through impact of Medium Utilise appropriate officer safety techniques
the camera by an assailant when to avoid close physical contact with other
worn against the head persons/offenders
Contagion Sharing units between multiple Medium Ensure that suitable wipes are available to
between users users may lead to the transfer of disinfect each unit after use
infectious agents or bodily fluid
Consider issuing personal headbands to
through skin and hair transfer
each user
Injury or illness Wearing the unit on the head may Medium Remove the headband at regular intervals and
cause soreness or discomfort whenever in the station
from the headband leading to
Identify headband suitability or consider other
headache or similar condition
options for positioning the camera on the body
or uniform

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 29

Plymouth
Health
Professional
andBCU
safety
Standards
HeadriskCamera
assessment
Departments (PSD) –
Project
Working practices
BACKGROUND (£85,000); Devon and Cornwall Police Authority
In July 2005, the Plymouth BCU commander Chief (£80,000); and the Home Office Police Standards Unit
Superintendent Watts tasked Sergeant Tayler with (independent evaluation and guidance).
evaluating the potential of head cameras for local police
Due to the significant size of the project, a project team
use. PS Tayler was selected because of his significant
was identified and PC Bateman was seconded to the
experience in optical evidence gathering. A system was
team as assistant lead officer for PS Tayler. The project
sourced through a local company and in November 2005
was overseen by Chief Inspector Matthews for the BCU
PS Tayler used a prototype head camera over a weekend
senior management team.
shift. The unit was returned to the company with a list of
recommended developments and in December 2005 a Prior to the commencement of the pilot, a showcase
second version of the head camera which incorporated event was held in Plymouth jointly hosted by GOSW and
the suggested improvements was made available to Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, which 19 police
PS Tayler, who considered the revised unit suitable for forces attended. Further presentations have taken place
extended testing in an operational environment. both locally and nationally to other forces and also to the
Policing Minister on his visit to the Devon and Cornwall
One head camera unit was purchased by the Plymouth
Constabulary area.
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) and
was ready for deployment in January 2006. It was utilised The head camera project team trained 300 officers and
in Plymouth during the Police Standards Unit’s Domestic staff to use the equipment in the selected sectors of the
Violence Enforcement Campaign, which ran during Plymouth BCU. A further 50 head-mounted cameras
February and March 2006 with some excellent results. with recording units were purchased and a supporting
The successful prosecution in March 2006 of Fiona back office facility was established with two police staff
Linehan for a domestic violence incident led to technicians responsible for the maintenance of the
world-wide media coverage of body-worn digital equipment and the production of exhibits for officers.
recording systems. The project formally commenced on 27 October 2006
(following a two-week phased implementation) and
The initial success of the first unit resulted in a further
concluded on 31 March 2007.
five units and associated laptop computers being
purchased for Plymouth BCU by the CDRP. This enabled AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
each sector within Plymouth to have the capability to • To provide police officers with an optical evidence
capture evidence and create exhibits for court. technological solution that will reduce bureaucracy,
In May 2006 Chief Superintendent Watts extended the improve sanction detections and streamline the
use of head cameras within the BCU through a pilot criminal justice process.
project to fully test the technology and its potential • To reduce challenges to police officer evidence in
effectiveness for the Police Service nationally. PS Tayler court.
was asked to lead this pilot Head Camera Project and
funding was secured from the following sources to • To increase early guilty pleas, reducing wasted police
ensure that an effective trial could be mounted within the officer and court time.
BCU: Government Office for the South West (GOSW) • To reduce the number of malicious complaints made
(£40,000); Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) against police officers.

30 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

• To reduce incidents of violent crime in the South head camera has been deployed (measurable through
and Central sectors of Plymouth – these are internal activity-based costing surveys).
predominantly areas for business and the evening
• Reduce complaints against police – specifically for
and night-time economy.
incivility and excessive use of force where head
The aim of the pilot project was to test the concept that cameras are deployed (measurable through
using the head camera can realise the benefits above. It Professional Standards Departments’ data) – by 40%.
required very close consultation with local and national
Due to the early successes of the project, some local
criminal justice partners and resulted in the forging of an
partner funding has been secured for the next two years,
excellent working relationship that has been extremely
Plymouth BCU has further expanded its use of BWV
beneficial to all the partner agencies.
across all sectors and all frontline staff are now trained
This was designed to be a six-month project that would in its use.
look specifically at violent offences, including violence in
public places, alcohol-related violence and domestic EQUIPMENT USED
violence incidents. The equipment that was identified at the time as a
potentially suitable product was the Archos AV500
The team identified challenging targets for the project, 100GB digital hard drive. This is a consumer product
which were as follows: which has been adapted to include security software
• Reduce violent crime in Plymouth’s South and Central in the form of a date and time stamp and password
sectors by 10% by the end of March 2007 protection for the deletion facility. The unit is connected
(measurable through police violent crime statistics). to a full-colour overt camera worn on a headband resting
just above the user’s left ear. This ensured that the camera
• Increase sanction detections for violent crime – equipment was clearly visible to members of the public.
specifically violence in public places and domestic
violence (measurable through police and CPS data) – A back office facility was set up to manage the data
by 15%. recorded and to facilitate retrieval of footage for
interview and court purposes. This required a standalone
• Reduce the sanction detection attrition rate for violent computer with a storage capacity of approximately
crime by 10% by the end of March 2007 (measurable 900GB set out as two drives. This allows the footage to
through police statistics for violent crime sanction be divided according to whether it is evidential or non-
detections). evidential, and therefore ensures that footage is deleted
• Increase the offences brought to justice (OBTJ) for after 31 days in accordance with ACPO and DPA
violent crime – specifically violence in public places standards. This is supported by a Buffalo RAID back-up
and domestic violence (measurable through police device with a 4 x 500MB back-up facility.
and CPS data) – by 15%.
BACK OFFICE FACILITY
• Reduce the OBTJ attrition rate for violent crime by Prior to the extended pilot, Plymouth BCU had 10 BWV
10% by the end of March 2007 (measurable using units and the data collected was managed by means of a
CPS statistics). standalone laptop in each of the six stations within the
• Reduce by 30% the time spent by officers on BCU. This involved individual officers being personally
paperwork and file preparation in incidents where the responsible for the management of the footage they

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 31

captured, including the production of disks for evidence All disks produced by the back office facility were stored
as required. While this was a relatively simple process, at the office in secure cabinets that were easily accessible
it did require more than basic computer literacy and if required for court purposes. This storage system
officers found the process complicated if they did not contained its own unique reference-numbering system to
undertake the task on a regular basis. make it easy to search the large number of disks
produced during the pilot.
It was considered that a standalone laptop would be
sufficient to manage a maximum of five BWV units as Once a BWV device had been processed, it was the
more than this would make the potential demand on a responsibility of the back office facility to ensure that the
single laptop unmanageable. With an increase in the footage on the unit was deleted, the batteries were
number of BWV units used during the pilot to 50, the charged and the unit was ready for the next deployment
cost of the laptops to enable officers to effectively as soon as practicable.
manage footage made this system of working financially
During the pilot, the back office facility (BOF) was
unviable.
staffed with two head camera technicians (HCTs) who
To overcome this problem, a back office facility was were seconded members of police staff who both had
created at a central police station. The purpose of the extensive backgrounds in IT and software development.
back office facility was to be a ‘one-stop shop’ for all To run the BOF for the period of the pilot, it was
aspects of the management of BWV devices, including established that it would require two full-time HCTs and
storing and maintaining all the equipment, liaising with a third trained person from the project team to cover one
the supplier in the event of equipment failure and giving weekend in three as well as cover for sickness and leave,
technical advice to frontline officers. etc. The BOF was therefore available seven days a week.
The primary role of the back office facility staff was the ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO DATE
management of all the data and recordings captured by There have been a number of positive results from using
officers using BWV. This included: head cameras in the Plymouth BCU:
• inputting the submission forms completed by • A number of complaints against police have been
officers; negated by supervisors at the earliest opportunity
• synchronising the equipment with a secure computer after viewing the footage available on the head
system; camera units.
• ensuring that all the captured images were appropriately • Officers have reported that they are now more aware
stored within a suitable software management system; of how they interact with members of the public,
which may lead to a subconscious improvement in
• producing evidential media (WORM CD-ROM or professionalism by individuals and lead to a better
DVD) for investigation or prosecution purposes; quality of service to the public.
• providing still images from recordings for briefing • Favourable feedback was received from a CPS lawyer
purposes or media appeals as appropriate; and about the impact that the head camera evidence had
• ensuring that current legislation was being adhered to during a domestic violence case at court. The footage
in respect of the deletion of non-evidential recordings. was very powerful because it showed how the
defendant presented himself at the time of the

32 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

 incident and reinforced the history of violence shown PITO will be providing test details to testing houses and
by him towards his partner. new units should be submitted by manufacturers through
testing houses for certification of compliance with this
• The project team has received feedback that members
test to avoid any compatibility problems.
of the public positively adapt their behaviour when
cameras are present and are less likely to be abusive For more information about the Plymouth BCU Head
or troublesome in front of police and PCSO Camera Project, visit www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/
BWV users. headcamera or email plymouthheadcampro@
devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND RESOLUTIONS
During the first three months of the pilot project, users
reported some difficulties with the equipment; some
officers lacked confidence in the equipment due to the
unit not recording when the remote switch had been
activated.
The headband has been identified as uncomfortable for
some users and others are unable to wear it due to the
discomfort it causes to the temple area, resulting in fewer
users. These issues have been raised with the supplier and
steps are being taken to resolve them. A prototype
headband designed by the project team is currently under
trial within Plymouth BCU and has received favourable
feedback. It also enables the head camera user to position
the camera over either ear and thus reduce the risk of
interference with the Airwave radio set
During the trial, there were a few occasions where users
reported interference with Airwave radio transmissions
when using BWV, so units from the trial were submitted
to the HOSDB and Police Information Technology
Organisation (PITO) for testing in accordance with their
Automotive Conformance Specification 5 tests. They
identified that this interference was caused by close
proximity of electromagnetic field leakage at the cable
joints and switch, and could be easily eliminated through
additional shielding or through ensuring that BWV and
Airwave units and cabling were at least 3cm apart on the
user’s body.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 33

Operational
Health
Professional
and safety
feedback
Standards
risk assessment
Departments (PSD) –
Working practices
PLYMOUTH BCU COMMANDER PLYMOUTH CPS
Chief Superintendent Morris Watts initiated and oversaw During the BWV pilot in Plymouth, a common assault
the trials in Plymouth and believes that head cameras are charge relating to a domestic abuse case was heard at
key to the future of policing and could eventually replace Plymouth Magistrates’ Court. This was believed to be the
the notebook and pen, further reducing the volume of first case where the evidence recorded by BWV was
paperwork. shown in court as direct evidence of domestic violence.
The evidence showed the police officers taking the
“I wanted to do everything I could to support this complaint from the victim and the offender being
project. My personal contribution was working with arrested at a neighbouring address. The offender reacted
various agencies to secure enough money to ensure aggressively to being arrested and made further threats
this wasn’t just a small pilot. I think even the sceptics towards the victim. The prosecutor made the following
would admit we’ve demonstrated proof of concept. comments:
“The pilot provided a reduction in violent crime and
“It was a new experience for me as a prosecutor to
improved detection rates as well as reducing officers’
have the use of head camera footage but I must say
time spent preparing files and attending court. It’s
that I found it extremely useful. It showed direct
been a total success, and now we will make the
evidence of the behaviour and demeanour of the
equipment more widely accessible by increasing the
defendant and showed both his violent and
numbers trained to include PCSOs, special
aggressive behaviour.
constables and other specialist roles.
“This related strongly to previous behaviour of the
“This technology could eventually see much of our
defendant and strengthened the witness evidence in
paperwork reduced, a substantial reduction in time
what was essentially a case of one person’s word
spent on investigations and the provision of better
against another’s.
quality evidence for the courts. This will increase our
OBTJ outcomes and, will in doing so, raise levels of “The victim was deemed to be a particularly
confidence in the service we provide. vulnerable female who had withdrawn her statement
but, after close consultation with multiple agencies,
“I have been fortunate that the Devon and Cornwall
she felt able to attend court when made aware that
Constabulary is such a forward-thinking and
there was strong evidence to show the behaviour and
innovative force. Without the flexibility to allow me
demeanour of the defendant.
to develop this project locally we would not have
enjoyed the great successes we have had during “The quality of the evidence was very good and
this pilot.” ensured that the verbal threats that were made were
clearly presented to the court.”

The defendant was found guilty of common assault and

the breach of an anti-social behaviour order and was
sentenced to six months in prison.

34 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Technical specifications

The specifications listed below have been designed by the system, i.e. about a 40° horizontal angle of
HOSDB in consultation with the Plymouth Head Camera view.
Project team and other operational users. Due regard has 1.1.6 The camera(s) must have a focal length such
been given to the requirements of operational policing to that an object 1.8m (5'9") tall will fill 50% of
ensure that the equipment is practical and capable of the viewing height at a distance of 7m.
producing evidence that can be played in a court.
1.1.7 Recording must be in a non-proprietary,
The specifications are therefore strong recommendations standard file format to enable replay on
for the Police Service to consider when purchasing BWV domestic DVD players and computers (PCs
systems. However, if a system does not comply in every and Macs) without conversion.
respect with these specifications, it will not render the
evidence gathered inadmissible. 1.1.8 The recording device should not permit the
editing or deletion of recordings. (The data
CAMERA AND VIDEO-RECORDING SYSTEM will be deleted only after it has been archived
to a computer, at which point the hard disk
SYSTEM OVERVIEW drive (HDD) or other storage medium will
The system will consist of a recording device linked to be wiped clean. However, the procedure to
a camera and microphone. It will be capable of being wipe the drive will be controlled from the
operated by one person and will be worn in such a way as archive computer to which the storage
to allow the user to retain full mobility and to keep both medium is connected, and not from the
hands free. It is intended as an overt recording system recording unit itself.)
and full or partial concealment is not required.
1.1.9 Each recorder should have a unique serial
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS number.
1. Video 1.2 Image quality
1.1 Recording 1.2.1 Recording should be at 25 frames per
1.1.1 It should be possible to start recording by second.
pressing a single button. 1.2.2 Recording should be at a minimum of VGA
1.1.2 There should be a ‘positive action’ on/off (640 x 480) resolution.
button, so that the user can feel (with gloves 1.2.3 The quality of the recording should be such
on) whether they have successfully switched that an individual should be recognisable up
the recorder on or off. to a distance of 7m from the camera.
1.1.3 Stopping recording should require a 1.3 Storage
minimum of two actions (e.g. pressing two
buttons), to reduce the possibility of 1.3.1 The recording device must be able to store a
accidental shutdown. minimum of 24 hours of video for a hard
disk-based recorder. For a Flash card-based
1.1.4 A clearly visible indicator(s) should denote system, the recording capacity should be
when the device is on and actively recording. more than the expected battery life.
1.1.5 The field of view to be covered by the lens 1.3.2 Filling the recording device should cause the
should approximate the human visual device to cease recording – existing data
must not be overwritten.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 35

 1.3.3 Data should be filed in a Windows-readable play, pause and stop controls or with a
directory structure. scroll-bar mechanism.
1.3.4 Incidents should be stored in separate 1.4.4 Where a long recording has been split into
directories. (An incident is defined as the separate files, the playback mechanism
period between the start and stop buttons should retrieve the complete recording and
being pressed.) allow seamless replay of the entire incident.
1.3.5 Long recordings should be split into 1.4.5 A ‘live view’ display option should be
segments, each of which is a maximum of available, to assist the officer to set the
2GB in size. These files should be stored in camera position and provide confirmation
the same directory and must be playable as that the system is connected correctly.
one continuous piece of footage. 1.5 Audio
1.3.6 File names should comprise the serial 1.5.1 Audio should be stored in a non-proprietary
number of the unit and the date and time format, replayable on domestic DVD
of the recording. players and computers.
1.3.7 Metadata (comprising unit serial number, 1.5.2 Audio should be synchronised with the
date and time) must be displayed on the video recording.
screen in a legible but unobtrusive manner.
2. Physical
1.3.8 Data must be stored on a removable
medium (e.g. removable HDD, Flash 2.1 The mounting for the camera will not move after
memory card etc.) and/or it should be being set by the officer.
possible to download the data from the 2.2 The recorder must have the means to be securely
recorder via a cabled download mechanism attachable to a police officer’s belt.
of a suitable speed, such as USB 2.0 or a
Firewire (400 or 800). The download rate 2.3 The microphone will be positioned along the cable
must be no lower than 350MB per second. connecting the camera to the recorder, in order to
USB 1.0 is not suitable for this purpose as capture both the officer’s speech and that of the
the download rate is inadequate. other parties to the conversation.

1.4 Playback 2.4 Cable connections from the camera and

microphone to the recording device will have a
1.4.1 The recording device should provide a ‘break point’ as a safety feature to reduce the risk of
replay facility via an inbuilt screen. injury to the officer. This should be located after
1.4.2 The display screen on the recording device the microphone but before the camera in the
will be high resolution to clearly display the recording chain. The cable should be coiled to
metadata overlay on the image. reduce the amount of exposed cable and so that it
moves easily with the officer’s head.
1.4.3 The device should be capable of searching
the incidents recorded by date and time to 2.5 Capture, record and storage device(s) should be
find the incident of interest. Once this sufficiently robust to withstand daily use in an
recording has been loaded into the replay operational police environment; for example, the
window, it should be possible to wind recorder should have physical protection against
through it to identify the specific event of knocks, should be shock and vibration-proof and
interest by means of fast forward, rewind, should be able to record while the officer is running.

36 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

2.6 Interface controls must be of sufficient size and 5. Troubleshooting
easily used by an officer who may be wearing 5.1 Suppliers of the system should provide an adequate
gloves. support network in the event of equipment failure.
2.7 The unit must have a maximum total weight of 500g.
DESIRABLE FEATURES AND CONSIDERATIONS
For head-mounted cameras 6. Additional features
2.8 The camera will be attached to the officer’s head or 6.1 Checksum of each file as it is created.
to the side of protective headwear (to capture the
same view as seen by the officer) and fixed in place 6.2 An audit trail in the device should be able to
with a headband. monitor usage, activation, replay and copying of
footage from the device and further down the
2.9 The headset should be secure and fully adjustable evidential chain to prevent unauthorised release
for the comfort and safety of the user. of video or arguments over system deployments.
2.10 The headset must be compatible with the wearing This should be separate from the image file and
of all standard issue police headgear for male and completely unalterable. It should be in an easily
female officers and PCSOs. readable form that a layperson can understand.

For body-mounted cameras 6.3 A function to allow recording and simultaneous

2.11 Body-mounted cameras should face forward and replay of material would be desirable.
capture the scene that the officer has their body 6.4 A camera with a rating of IP 67.
facing towards. 6.5 Upgrading firmware/software should be
3. Environment straightforward and should not require any
3.1. Ingress protection of camera (i.e. protection from connection to the internet.
dust and water) to IP 6521 standard. 6.6 There should be time synchronisation capabilities
3.2. The temperature range of operation should be that an administrator can perform to ensure the
–5°C to +30°C. units are all locked to exactly the same date and
time.
3.3 The system should not interfere with other
electronic equipment carried by the officer, 6.7 Measures should be taken to prevent accidental
particularly the Airwave radio system. Therefore, unit shutdowns.
compliance with Automotive Conformance 6.8 Screensavers would be desirable to save on battery
Specification 5 of PITO guidance is essential.22 life.
4. Battery 6.9 A targeting device on the camera is desirable to
4.1 Rechargeable batteries are essential. enable accurate recording for the officer. This
should raise no safety issues and it should not
4.2 A fully charged battery should provide power for be possible to activate this accidentally.
at least eight hours’ continual recording.
6.10 Devices/recording media should be tied to a
4.3 Batteries should be removed from the recording particular workgroup of computers (as with
unit to be recharged, so that the recorder does not multimedia players such as iPods ) to prevent
have to be withdrawn from service while
recharging occurs.
21 www.aquatext.com/tables/ip_ratings.htm
22 For further information, please contact Jim Mathesion of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) on 07887 821 392,
or email jim.mathieson@npia.pnn.police.uk

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 37

 accidental download of material onto an unsecured • store non-evidential material for 31 days before
computer, but there must be a facility for deletion.
administrator override.
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
6.11 The supplier should provide data recovery assistance
1. Hardware
in the event of a catastrophic system failure.
1.1 The minimum amount of storage space required is
6.12 An audible alarm should sound when the device
1TB, although upgradeable storage is desirable.
is 95% full.
1.2 A RAID 1 redundant drive for hard drive failure
6.13 Metadata could be displayed onscreen in a
should be incorporated, with alarm functionality
user-defined position.
to notify failure. Operation should continue
6.14 A global positioning system (GPS) could be unaffected using the remaining hard drive.
integrated into the device that activates when the
1.3 Master and working copies to be created on
system is recording to document officer movement
WORM media. WORM creation facility must
within an incident; this would be to show, at
consist of at least two drives to create a master and
minimum, officer location (longitude and latitude),
working copy simultaneously, although more drives
heading and altitude.
may be required depending on police force
6.15 A barcode system of checking units in and out requirements. Given the large volume of data to
from the storage facility. be archived, DVD drives (as a minimum) would
6.16 Provision of a range of mounting options to be appropriate.
enable users in different situations to use the 1.4 Connection to the BWV systems must be present,
equipment (e.g. helmet, cycle helmet, NATO i.e. USB 2.0 devices, Flash card reader, Firewire
helmet, epaulette). port, caddy for removable hard drive etc.
6.17 Provision of a range of mounting options for the 2. Software
head, so that each individual officer can select the
2.1. The graphical user interface should be a simple
most appropriate/secure/comfortable one.
wrapper to allow a user to perform only the
ARCHIVE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM following functions:
SYSTEM OVERVIEW 2.1.1 Log in to system.
This section sets out the specification for the back office 2.1.2 Download new video to the system from
facility for the storage, replay and archiving of video the recorder.
taken from BWV devices.
2.1.3 Add label of officer ID (and the ID of
The solution will ideally be computer (PC) based and person entering data onto system if
should allow the user to: different).
• download video from the body-worn camera; 2.1.4 Software should prompt the officer to
• review video on the system; decide whether the footage is evidential
or non-evidential.
• create master and working copies of evidential
2.1.5 Search data on the system by date and time
material on WORM media; and
of recording, recorder serial number, officer
ID, and whether data is evidential or
non-evidential.

38 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

 2.1.6 Review data using simple play, pause, fast- 3. Audit trail
forward and rewind buttons. 3.1. The audit trail must contain the following items,
2.1.7 Frame-grabbing function to save stills from with dates, times and user details of their creations
the file, and the ability to print out these and amendments:
images. • when data is added to the archive system;
2.1.8 Allow officer to change status of the • when data is reviewed;
footage from non-evidential to evidential or
vice-versa. • when the status is amended;
2.1.9 Create a master and a working copy by • who has viewed the file;
clicking one button. • when the master is created;
2.1.10 User access must be limited to the graphical • when a working copy is created; or
user interface and prevent access to the
desktop. • when the data is deleted.

2.1.11 Officer incident logs must be added to the 4. Disk management

system and filed alongside the video data, 4.1 The system should not over-write existing material
either by scanning in a handwritten that is either:
document or by means of computer-
• non-evidential and less than 31 days old; or
generated forms.
• evidential and not archived to WORM.
2.2 Administrator function (password protected) to
allow access to the desktop, install upgrades to 4.2 A warning message must occur when the HDD
firmware and software and to view and print the fills to 95% of its capacity. If the HDD is full, then
audit log. the system should stop accepting new data.
2.3 The decision as to the status of the evidence must 4.3 A warning message should appear on log-in if
be made at the point of data input. The software evidential data has not been archived, detailing
will then tag evidential and non-evidential material those files that need to be archived.
differently. Non-evidential data should be auto- 5. Troubleshooting
deleted after 31 days. Evidential footage should
be deleted after the creation of the master and 5.1 Suppliers of the system should provide an adequate
working copies (and verification). support network in the event of equipment failure.

2.4 The verification process must occur after the DESIRABLE FEATURES AND CONSIDERATIONS
footage has been downloaded (from BWV to 6. Additional features
computer, and then from computer to WORM) to
6.1 Frame advance and rewind so that video can be
ensure that all data has been accurately transferred.
closely scrutinised.
2.5 When it has been confirmed that the video has
6.2 The supplier should provide data recovery
been transferred successfully from the BWV to the
assistance in event of a catastrophic system failure.
back office system, the data should be wiped from
the BWV so that the unit can be redeployed. 6.3 Automated writer, stacker and label printer for
master and working copy creation.
2.6 There must be no facility for editing files.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 39

Glossary
Health
Professional
and safety
Standards
risk assessment
Departments (PSD) –
Working practices
ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers PCSD Police and Crime Standards Directorate
BCU basic command unit PCSO police community support officer
BWV body-worn video PITO Police Information Technology Organisation
CCTV closed-circuit television PSD Professional Standards Department
CD-ROMcompact disk read-only memory PSU Police Standards Unit
CDRP Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership RAID redundant array of independent disks
CPIA Criminal Procedure and Investigations RIPA Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Act 1996 USB universal serial bus
CPS Crown Prosecution Service VGA video graphics array
CSO community support officer WORM write once, read many (times)
DIP Digital Imaging Procedure
DPA Data Protection Act 1998
DPP Director of Public Prosecutions
DVD digital video disk
DVEC Domestic Violence Enforcement Campaign
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
FOIA Freedom of Information Act 2000
GOSW Government Office for the South West
GPS global positioning system
HDD hard disk drive
HOSDB Home Office Scientific Development Branch
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office
ID identification
IO investigating officer
IP ingress protection
IPCC Independent Police Complaints Commission
IT information technology
NPIA National Policing Improvement Agency
NRF Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
OBTJ offences brought to justice
PACE Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
PC personal computer

40 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Resource disk (list of contents)

Example recordings from Plymouth Head Camera Plymouth street sign (fair processing notice under
Project the DPA)
Proactive patrols for anti-social behaviour and underage Plymouth Head Camera Project logo
drinking
‘Prevent, deter, catch, convict’
Football match
Misuse of drugs warrants Training package:
Stop and search
Professional development PowerPoint presentation: training packages
devised by and copyright to Plymouth Head
Camera, knocked offline during use and not recording Camera Project team and Devon and Cornwall
what was intended Constabulary
Multiple cameras deployed at the same incident
Domestic violence incidents
Lesson plans to accompany PowerPoint presentation:
Example recording from Lancashire Constabulary 1 Introduction
Police use of Taser (recording of justification for use) 2 RIPA
3 Concept and technology
Example recordings are not to be shown outside 4 Practical use
a police environment without the express 5 Professional standards
permission of the Home Office, Police and
6 Diversity
Crime Standards Directorate
7 Downloading and continuity
Sample statements from Plymouth Head Camera
Project
Statement of arrest – without creating own evidential
disks
Statement of arrest – with creation of own evidential
disks
Statement of use without arrest
Posters used during Plymouth Head Camera
Project
‘Glass head’
‘Police van door’
‘Police, camera, action’
‘Video screen’
‘Handcuffed’

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 41

Letter to
Glossary
Health
Professional
and
body-worn
safety
Standards
risk
video
assessment
Departments
suppliers from(PSD)
HOSDB – Sandridge
Working
(29 March practices
2007)
For the attention of suppliers of overt body-worn
video systems for police use
This note is to highlight that one of the key requirements
for police use of body-worn video cameras is that there
is no interference between these units and the Tetra radio
(as well as other electronic equipment that the police are
likely to carry).
It has come to our attention, following preliminary tests
using a basic Archos AV500 with digital mini camera,
that interference can occur due to radio frequency
emissions from the region around the control switch that
is on the cable between the camera and the recorder.
Where the switch and the Tetra radio are in close
proximity, this interference will result in reduced airwave
coverage.
In order to ensure that any body-worn video recording
equipment is suitable for police use it should conform to
PITO Specification 5. For further details of Specification
5 and details of the appropriate tests that should be
carried out on body-worn video camera systems, please
contact Jim Mathieson, Head of the PITO Automotive
and Equipment Section on 07887 821 392, or
jim.mathieson@npia.pnn.police.uk
Neil Cohen
Programme Manager
Video Evidence Analysis

42 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Appendix A: Plymouth Head Camera Project –
Body-Worn Video Recording System
(Head Cameras): National Pilot, Final Report,
April 2007

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 43

Contents

Executive summary 47

1. Introduction 48
1.1 The pilot 48
1.2 Expected benefits 48
1.3 This report 49
2. Measured performance 50
2.1 Key measures linked to funding 50
2.2 Incident attrition 58
2.3 Crime recording to detection timescales 64
2.4 Video submission scorecard 65
2.5 Marketing 66
2.6 Victim feedback 67
2.7 Public awareness 67
3. Technology 69
3.1 Background technology 69
3.2 Adoption of technology 69
3.3 Head camera issues 76
3.4 Officer questionnaire results 79
3.5 Issues with equipment and technology 79
3.6 Training course 80
3.7 User Group 80
4. Process 81
4.1 Process analysis 81
4.2 The booking in and out process 82
4.3 Officer patrol 82
4.4 Submission of evidence 82
4.5 Prisoner handling 83
4.6 CPS 83
4.7 Court issues 83
5. Issues and benefits 84
5.1 Officer questionnaire 84
5.2 Benefit examples to date 84
5.3 Concerns 84
5.4 Officer feedback (anecdotal) 85
5.5 Other comments 86
5.6 Other uses of the technology 86
5.7 Summary of officer questionnaire feedback 87

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 45

6. Conclusions 88
6.1 Key objectives 88
6.2 Issues 88
6.3 In summary 89
7. Future use of head cameras 90
7.1 Current process 90
7.2 Proposed process 99
7.3 Scaled-up benefits 105
7.4 Roll-out guidance 106
Annex 1: Summary of head camera questionnaire results 108

Annex 2: Complaints against the police 111

Annex 3: Victim survey 113

46 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Executive summary

The Home Office has been working with Devon and TECHNOLOGY
Cornwall Constabulary to analyse the results from the During the pilot, cameras were booked out 1,564 times
pilot use of head cameras by police officers. The pilot for a total duration of 10,000 hours; 3,054 recordings
has been funded by Plymouth Basic Command Unit were made, totalling 530 hours of video (an average of
(BCU) in conjunction with local partners, the 10.4 minutes for each recording submitted). Of the
Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF), Government recordings submitted, 883 (28.9%) were tagged as
Office South West (GOSW) and the Devon and ‘evidential’ for potential use within the criminal justice
Cornwall Police Authority. The pilot has primarily taken system (CJS). The technology offered some very good
place within the South and Central sectors of Plymouth evidence. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to
BCU, which encompass the business, evening and night- comment on the effect on court outcomes, owing to
time economy districts of Plymouth City. insufficient availability of data. Some minor issues were
reported with the technology that reduced the uptake by
Process Evolution Limited was commissioned to
officers, to do with comfort of the headgear and actual
examine the results. This was with the aim of quantifying
operation.
any benefits associated with the use of head cameras, at
the same time noting any issues. This report comments
PROCESS
on the technology, the process and the resultant benefits.
Currently the process for handling the evidence is robust,
In addition, a simulation has been developed to model
with a secure audit trail of evidence. However, the
the potential impact of wider implementation.
process could be streamlined further and thus is under
Headline findings are as follows: review by the project team. The simulation model
outlines one potential process, designed by the author.
• increase in converting a violent incident into a crime
(71.8% to 81.7%); The purpose of the pilot was to set out to demonstrate
whether or not head cameras can enhance policing. The
• increase in Penalty Notices for Disorder (and
findings contained within this report appear to support
administration detections) (2.4% to 3.9%);
the premise that they can make a valuable contribution.
• increase in charge/summons (10.2% to 15%); There is a reduction in officer time spent on paperwork
and an increase in officer time spent on patrol. The high
• increase in sanction detections (29% to 36.8%);
quality of the recorded evidence tends to increase the
• complaints against the police reduced by 14.3% and rate of guilty pleas. These factors serve to improve the
significantly there were no complaints against officers efficiency and effectiveness of the justice process.
wearing head cameras; Overall, quantitative and anecdotal evidence indicates an
increase in the number of offences brought to justice,
• reduction of 22.4% in officer time spent on
which is a desirable result for any policing service.
paperwork and file preparation;
• increase of 9.2% of officer time spent on mobile and
foot patrol (which equates to 50 minutes of a 9-hour
shift);
• 90% of a random sample of the public surveyed in
the city centre in the early evening were positive about
the use of head cameras, and to date there has been
no adverse media coverage.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 47

1. Introduction

Head cameras are small video cameras with the ability to For the pilot, 300 police officers and police community
record video and sound, mounted at the side of a police support officers (PCSOs) were trained to use any of the
officer’s head. They are clearly visible and used overtly. In 50 cameras available during day and night patrols; this
addition to capturing evidence of an incident, officers are trial therefore covers a wide breadth of incident types.
able to confront offenders with their actions by replaying There is also the potential to capture evidence of other
footage to them in interview. On being shown evidence crimes and any secondary crimes.
of their behaviour, offenders are more likely to plead
The relevant laptops and computer equipment were
guilty, or to accept cautions or Penalty Notices for
provided to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and
Disorder (PNDs), rather than to contest their cases in
Magistrates’ and Crown Courts by the Project Team,
court.
so that the head camera footage could be viewed when
The Plymouth Head Camera Project evolved following a required, i.e. in preparation of the case or within the
review of optical evidence gathering (OEG) within the court itself.
Plymouth BCU, as a result of experiences during
Operation Talon. Operation Talon concerned the 1.2 EXPECTED BENEFITS
policing of the business, evening and night-time Deploying the head camera technology is expected to
economy areas of Plymouth City. It was apparent that provide a number of benefits as follows:
there was a need for new technology and appropriate • prevent and deter crime, as the presence of a head
training because of physical obstructions in certain areas camera is anticipated to change the behaviour of
of the city which meant that CCTV footage could not be potential offenders;
captured. Furthermore, within those obstructed areas,
there had been serious assaults and disorder. In January • catch and convict, as the head camera footage will
2006, Plymouth BCU took possession of a prototype provide best evidence for the CPS to act upon.
version of a body-worn digital recording system The value added to the process of bringing offenders to
(BWDRS), purchased through the Community Safety justice is shown in Graph 1. If head cameras are used,
Partnership.
there is an increased chance of making an arrest. If an
This pilot does not represent the first use of head arrest has been made, there is an increase in obtaining a
cameras in Plymouth. They were used on a limited basis sanction detection and ‘brought to justice’ outcome,
during a domestic violence enforcement campaign. This compared to incidents that are not attended with a head
ran during February and March 2006 (eight weeks) and camera.
served to prove the potential value of such technology.

1.1 THE PILOT

The South and Central sectors of Plymouth BCU have
had most involvement with the pilot, with limited use of
head cameras by the other sectors. The focus of the pilot
has been on violence-related incidents, including
alcohol-related violence, violence in public places and
domestic violence. The trial included the Christmas
period, with its associated increase in alcohol-related
incidents.

48 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

 Graph 1: Incident attrition

No head camera
Head camera
Incident volume

Increasing ‘brought
to justice’ outcome

Direction of events

Incidents Arrests Sanction Brought

detection to justice

1.3 THIS REPORT

The objective of this report is to provide the Home
Office and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary with
independent analysis of the issues raised and benefits
offered by the head camera in everyday policing.
In essence, this analysis has examined four key areas:
• analysis of the benefits against the key project
measures;
• attrition analysis showing the effect along the process
as the case progresses from initial report to officer
attendance, to arrest, to charge, to court and finally to
sentence;
• qualitative assessment – issues and benefits that
cannot be quantified with hard data analysis but are
supported by some anecdotal evidence; and
• an assessment of the workload and benefits of
expanding the pilot.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 49

2. Measured performance

This section analyses data to quantify the impact that can 2.1 KEY MEASURES LINKED TO FUNDING
be attributed to the use of head cameras. Data from
2005/06 is analysed against data from 2006/07 to assess Table 1 lists the performance measures and
the change over the same period of each year. In corresponding target improvements, relating to
addition, data from 2006/07 is analysed and those Plymouth South and Central sectors combined, as
incidents that were attended with a head camera and defined by the Project Team.
those that were not are identified. The following subsections examine the detail behind the
The analysis focuses on assessing the performance final results of each of the seven key measures as stated
against the key project measures followed by some in the table below.
incident attrition and trend analysis.

Table 1: Performance measures and results – Plymouth Head Camera Project

Measure Description Result
1 10% reduction in violent crime in South and Central sectors by end of Reduction of 1.2%
March 2007 (wounding reduced by
12.8%)
2 15% increase in sanction detections for violent crime, specifically violence in Increase of 26.9%
public places and domestic violence
3 10% reduction in the sanction detection attrition rate for violent crime by Reduction of 8.8%
end of March 2007
4 15% increase in offences brought to justice (OBTJs) (relating to all violent Increase of 7.3%
crime)
5 10% reduction in OBTJ attrition rate for violent crime by end of March Reduction of 3.9% in
2007 attrition rate
6 30% reduction in officer time spent on paperwork and file preparation in Reduction of 22.4%
incidents where the head camera has been deployed
7 40% reduction in complaints against police, specifically for incivility and Overall complaints
excessive use of force where head cameras are deployed reduced by 14.3%

50 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

2.1.1 Measure 1: 10% reduction in violent The graph shows the pilot fully running by week 29. In
crime in South and Central sectors by end of comparing the activity during the pilot, 20 weeks, from
March 2007 week 33 to week 52, were compared. This shows a
reduction in violent crimes of 15, equating to a reduction
Comparison of 2005/06 data with 2006/07
of 1.2%. However, it is also clear from the graph that
This section evaluates the change in crime volumes
something significant happened around week 42 of
compared to the same period of 2005/06.
2005/06 to produce a drop in violent crime. Had this
Graph 2 shows a four-week rolling average of violent been repeated in 2006/07, the reduction during the trial
crimes for both years of data. The period of the trial is would have been much higher. It is not possible,
the shaded area and within this graph it is apparent that therefore, to comment definitively on the role of head
both trial sectors combined have seen a decrease in cameras as a causal factor in crime reduction on the basis
recorded violent crime. of the results of this pilot.

Graph 2: Plymouth South and Central: Violent crime 2005/06 and 2006/07
90
Violent crime count (average over 4 weeks)

Pilot trial
80

70

60

50

40

30

20 Violent 2005/06
Violent 2006/07
10

0
wk 1–4

wk 3–6

wk 5–8

wk 7–10

wk 9–12

wk 11–14

wk 13–16

wk 15–18

wk 17–20

wk 19–22

wk 21–24

wk 23–26

wk 25–28

wk 27–30

wk 29–32

wk 31–34

wk 33–36

wk 35–38

wk 37–40

wk 39–42

wk 41–44

wk 43–46

wk 45–48

wk 47–50

wk 49–52

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 51

 Table 2: Violent crime
All violence All violence Change % change
2005/06 2006/07
20 weeks (weeks 33 to 52) 1,249 1,234 -15 -1.2%

Within the violent crime category is wounding. The

reduction in wounding during the pilot and compared
with the previous year is shown in Graph 3.

Graph 3: Plymouth South and Central: Wounding 2005/06 and 2006/07

50
Pilot trial
Wounding count (average over 4 weeks)

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 Wounding 2005/06
Wounding 2006/07
5
0
wk 1–4

wk 3–6

wk 5–8

wk 7–10

wk 9–12

wk 11–14

wk 13–16

wk 15–18

wk 17–20

wk 19–22

wk 21–24

wk 23–26

wk 25–28

wk 27–30

wk 29–32

wk 31–34

wk 33–36

wk 35–38

wk 37–40

wk 39–42

wk 41–44

wk 43–46

wk 45–48

wk 47–50

wk 49–52

Applying the same calculation here shows a reduction in

wounding of 92 equating to a drop of 12.8%. Again,
a sharp drop in wounding is shown for 2005/06 that is
not repeated during the trial. It is not possible to
comment definitively on the relationship of head
cameras to reductions in this crime type on the basis of
these results.

52 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

 Table 3: Wounding offences
All All Change % change
wounding wounding
2005/06 2006/07
20 weeks (weeks 33 to 52) 720 628 -92 -12.8%

2.1.2 Measure 2: 15% increase in sanction

detections for violent crime, specifically violence
in public places and domestic violence
The comparison in Table 4 examines South and Central
data for 2006/07, for violent and domestic violence
crimes where a head camera was used/not used.

Table 4: Violent crime and domestic violence sanction detections

Crimes Sanction detection
Violent Domestic Violent Domestic Violent Domestic Total
crime violence crime violence crime violence detection
(public (public detection detection rate
place) place) rate rate
No head camera 462 156 129 50 27.9% 32.1% 29.0%

Head camera 178 42 62 19 34.8% 45.2% 36.8%

Against the measure the calculation could be interpreted

as an increase equal to 7.8% divided by 29.0% =
26.9%, i.e. almost double the target set by the project.

2.1.3 Measure 3: 10% reduction in the sanction

detection attrition rate for violent crime by end
of March 2007
Table 5 compares the attrition rate for violent crimes in
the South and Central sectors where the head camera was
used/not used. Here the attrition rate falls from 61.5% to
56.1%.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 53

 Table 5: Violent crime attrition rate
Violent Crimes
Crimes Sanction No Attrition
detection sanction
detection
No head camera 652 181 401 61.5%

Head camera 221 59 124 56.1%

Against the measure the calculation could be interpreted

as a decrease equal to 5.4% divided by 61.5% = 8.8%,
i.e. almost the target set by the project.

2.1.4 Measure 4: 15% increase in OBTJs

(relating to all violent crime)
As some cases may take several months to come to court,
it is not possible to make a full comparison of OBTJs in
2005/06 against 2006/07. This analysis may be possible
when all of the cases initiated during the trial have
progressed to a court outcome.
Initial findings are that there has been an improvement
of 7.3% in violent crime OBTJs with a rise from 34.1%
to 36.6%.
This is an initial success, but further comparison will be
required and this is ongoing.

2.1.5 Measure 5: 10% reduction in OBTJ attrition

rate for violent crime by end of March 2007
There has been a reduction of 3.9% in the attrition rate
for OBTJs from 65.9% to 63.4%.
As with Measure 4, this is an initial success, but further
comparison will be required and this is ongoing.

Anecdotal evidence
To date it is possible to provide anecdotal evidence
where head camera evidence has resulted in early guilty
pleas on a case-by-case basis:

54 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

 • A female was arrested and charged with a number
of violence offences on both her partner and
police following a domestic incident. The case was
brought to justice within 17 days from arrest to
sentence, supported by compelling evidence from
the head camera footage. The female’s solicitor
stated that the evidence was beyond question.
• A male received a significant custodial sentence at
court for common assault on his partner
following a domestic incident. Head camera
evidence was able to show his demeanour and
aggressive behaviour, both verbal and physical,
towards his partner and police. This was used to
reinforce the history of violence shown by this
male to his partner. The CPS was impressed by
the quality of the evidence and its impact in court.

2.1.6 Measure 6: 30% reduction in officer

time spent on paperwork and file preparation
in incidents where the head camera has been
deployed
An activity-based costing (ABC) analysis was carried out
for one week during the pilot and the results analysed to
compare activity times of officers with and without head
cameras. The analysis looked to compare the same
number of total hours for officers with and without head
cameras.
Graph 4 shows the comparison of percentage time spent
on each of the main activities. Seventy-one activities were
listed in total, but the first 16 accounted for 85% of the
total time recorded, and activities 17 to 71 were too
insignificant to appear clear on the graph.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 55

 Graph 4: Activity-based costing analysis
30%
No head camera
25% Head camera
Proportion of time

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Deal with incident
(at scene)

Mobile patrol

Paperwork
(general)

Refreshments

Deal with detainees

Enquiries at scene

Briefing by
supervisor

Other incident
paperwork

Training

Case file prep (inc.

quality checking)

Completing ABC
booklet

Foot patrol

Meeting/handover

Checking
paperwork

Checking/answering
emails

Managing/monitoring
OIS logs
Statement
taking/video
interviewing
Activity

The time spent on case file preparation has fallen from

3.1% to 2.4% of total time spent. This equates to a
reduction of 22.5%. There is also a noticeable increase
in time spent on mobile and foot patrol of 9.2% (or 50
minutes of a 9-hour shift). This supports the force
objectives of greater visibility on the street, and
improved community access.

56 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Table 6: ABC analysis
Name Head Day No time 0–30 31–60 61–90 Total
camera saved mins mins mins time
used
Officer 1 yes Saturday Y

Officer 2 yes Monday Y 45

Officer 2 yes Tuesday Y 45
Officer 2 yes Wednesday Y 75
Officer 2 yes Thursday Y 0
Officer 3 yes Saturday Y
Officer 3 yes Sunday Y
Officer 4 yes Friday Y
Officer 4 yes Saturday Y 15
Officer 4 yes Sunday Y 45
Officer 5 yes Tuesday Y 15
Officer 6 yes Friday Y
Officer 6 yes Saturday Y
Total 240 minutes
Per shift average 18.5 minutes
3.4% of 9-hour shift

Officer 2 total 165 minutes

Per shift average 41.3 minutes
7.6% of 9-hour shift

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 57

Within the ABC analysis booklet an additional head 2.1.7 Measure 7: 40% reduction in complaints
camera section was available to be filled in; although it against police, specifically for incivility and
was missed by some officers, the results of those who excessive use of force where head cameras are
did fill it in are shown in Table 6. deployed
Police complaints data for 2006/07 was compared with
The average saving based on these results is 18.5 minutes
2005/06 in the South and Central sectors. The figures are
per officer per 9-hour shift.
shown in Annex 2; however, the volumes are too small to
Focus on regular users draw any conclusions, due to the low proportion of
In Table 6, Officer 2 is a regular user of the head camera incidents attended by officers with head cameras (about
and the time saving demonstrated equates to 5%). However, to date no complaints have been progressed
approximately 40 minutes in a 9-hour shift. against officers who were wearing a head camera.

It would be expected that as officers use the technology Anecdotal evidence

they will become more proficient at processing the Some anecdotal evidence was given showing incidents
submission paperwork than those who are less used to it. where the head camera had prevented complaints against
Likewise, as officers use the technology more, not only the police. One such example was a complaint received
will their proficiency increase, but identification of from an offender claiming excessive force was used when
further process improvements may be gleaned. they were arrested. The head camera contained evidence
which disproved the allegation and the offender
Anecdotal evidence subsequently withdrew their complaint after viewing the
In addition to the ABC analysis, a number of officers footage.
were interviewed.
2.2 INCIDENT ATTRITION
• For crimes where an arrest is made, officers This section examines the journey of an incident to a
estimate that approximately 30 minutes of time is crime, arrest and finally a charge. The data analysis
saved in writing up the case. examines separately incidents attended with and without
• Officers cited additional future benefits if the head cameras.
witness statements could be recorded and
presented in court as video. This could save an Incident attrition
additional 2 hours per crime where arrests are
made. Incident

• An officer who is a regular user of the head Not crime

camera has noticed a significant reduction in Crime Loss
related
warnings for court attendance. This is another
area of time saving that will increase as the use of Arrest PND/NFA Loss
the head cameras is expanded.
No
Charge charge Loss

58 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Graph 5 shows the attrition for the main incident types
(where the main types of incident account for 90% of
total charges given). The (R) denotes ‘recordable’ crime.
In the majority of incident categories the head camera
has a positive impact in reducing the attrition rate.

Graph 5: Head camera impact by crime

Crime from incident Arrest from crime Detection from arrest
100% Crime from incident (HC) Arrest from crime (HC) Detection from arrest (HC)

90%

80%
Success rate

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Theft (R) Violence (R) Other crime (R) Criminal Drugs (R) Burglary (R) Totals
damage (R)

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 59

Table 7 shows a significant increase in detections in all
crime types except drugs when a head camera is used.

Table 7: Head camera impact by crime

No head camera Head camera
Crime Crime Arrest Detection Crime Arrest Detection
from from from from from from
incident crime arrest incident crime arrest
Theft (R) 81.6% 23.8% 36.6% 80.0% 55.0% 60.0%

Violence (R) 71.8% 28.2% 22.2% 81.7% 53.6% 28.1%

Other crime (R) 63.4% 35.3% 30.0% 69.0% 55.2% 44.8%
Criminal damage (R) 75.9% 14.8% 15.6% 91.7% 38.9% 33.3%
Drugs (R) 80.8% 65.8% 54.8% 94.7% 89.5% 42.1%
Burglary (R) 88.5% 7.3% 5.9% 90.9% 36.4% 27.3%
Totals 29.6% 8.6% 8.6% 56.6% 36.3% 24.2%
Note: (R) = recordable

There are other positive results outside of this attrition,

for example, Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs)
without arrest and cautions following arrest.
When examining the combined average of these main
incident types, the use of head cameras resulted in 27%
more incidents being converted to a crime report. That
crime is then nearly five times as likely to result in an
arrest. The chance of the arrest resulting in a detection is
almost four times higher. However, there is a higher level
of no further action (NFA) at custody which requires
further investigation and this is ongoing.

60 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

2.2.1 Violent incident analysis
This section focuses on the attrition for violent
recordable crime.

Table 8: Violent crime attrition

No head camera Head camera
Step Process stage No Detection: % no % No detection: Detection: % no %
detection: 22.2% detection detection 71.9% 28.1% detection detection
77.8%

Number of 996 153

incidents
1 Incidents 281 28.2% 0.0% 28 18.3% 0.0%
not crimed

2 No action at 397 39.9% 0.0% 39 25.5% 0.0%

scene
3 PND 24 0.0% 2.4% 6 0.0% 3.9%
4 Caution 95 0.0% 9.5% 14 0.0% 9.2%
5 Charged/ 102 0.0% 10.2% 23 0.0% 15.0%
summonsed
6 No action at 97 9.7% 0.0% 43 28.1% 0.0%
custody
775 221 77.8% 22.2% 110 43 71.9% 28.1%

No head camera Head camera

No detection: 77.8% Detection: 22.2% No detection: 71.9% Detection: 28.1%

Incidents not crimed Incidents not crimed

= 28.2% = 18.3%

No action at scene
= 25.5%
No action at scene
= 39.9% PND = 3.9%
Caution = 9.2%
PND = 2.4%
Caution = 9.5% Charged/summonsed
= 15.0%
Charged/summonsed
= 10.2% No action at custody
No action at custody = 28.1%
= 9.7%

The use of a head camera shows:

• increase in the number of incidents resulting in a
crime (71.8% to 81.7%);
• no action at scene reduced (39.9% down to 25.5%);
Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 61
• increase in PNDs (and administration detections)
(2.4% up to 3.9%);
• decrease in cautions (9.5% down to 9.2%);
• increase in charge/summons (10.2% to 15.0%); and
• no action at custody increased (9.7% to 28.1%).

2.2.2 All crime analysis

Graph 6: All crime; comparison for head camera use

No head camera Head camera

Not crimed Not crimed

= 43.5% = 31.7%

No action at scene = 3.6% No action at scene = 5.7%

PND = 0.3% PND = 1.1%

Caution = 0.9% Caution = 2.2%

Charged/summonsed = 0.9% Charged/summonsed = 3.3%

No action at custody = 0.9% No action at custody = 6.1%

During any pilot it is possible that the improvement will

arise simply by the fact that there is a focus on the use of
head cameras. Also it may be the case that those officers
booking out head cameras are generally more proactive.

62 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

2.2.3 Crime yield analysis

Graph 7: Crime yield from incident

4%
Head camera
No head camera
3%
Frequency

2%

1%

0%
2 3 4 >4
Number of crimes against incident

The analysis in Graph 7 examines how individual

incidents are converted into one or more crimes. Further
analysis shows that where a head camera has been used,
the chance of generating more than one crime is also
higher. This is effectively the crime yield from an incident.
Graph 7 shows a comparison of crime yield from
incidents where head cameras were and were not used.
The number of incidents converted into only one crime
dominates at over 90%. This bar is not shown in the
graph for clarity.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 63

2.3 CRIME RECORDING TO DETECTION
TIMESCALES
Table 9 shows that the average time taken to resolve a
case with a head camera was marginally longer than cases
where the head camera was not used. The data used was
the incident response date to the time that the outcome
was made.
It had been anticipated that the resolution time would be
quicker in cases where the head camera had been used.

Table 9: Case resolution comparison

Oct 2006 to No head camera Head camera
March 2007
Outcome Count Total time Average time Count Total time Average time
for all per case for all per case
cases (days) (days) cases (days) (days)
Charged or 415 5,999 14.5 83 1,267 15.3
summonsed
Cautioned 201 2,294 11.4 44 632 14.4
PND 191 610 3.2 31 41 1.3
Admin detection 49 1,288 26.3 6 216 36.0
856 10,191 11.9 164 2,156 13.1

64 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

2.4 VIDEO SUBMISSION SCORECARD The following measures were used:
An independent review was made of 45 individual video
clips picked at random to assess their quality and value. Measure Description
The assessment was subjective, rating each measure from Video General assessment of video quality –
one to three. It is stressed that the equipment used was quality focus, vibration and movement
commercial rather than designed specifically for police
use. Therefore further developments could be possible. Field of How much of the subject area is
view captured
Framing of How well the subject is framed – an
subject indication of camera direction
Light/ What the lighting/colour balance is
colour like
Sound
How clear the sound is – volume
clarity

Graph 8: Subjective assessment of recorded footage

Quality

Field
Video

Frame

Light/colour

Sound
clarity

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 65

Video quality
Generally the video quality was adequate for reviewing.
There were a number of clips that were out of focus but
still offered some evidence. The image enhancement is
good. However, night-time footage out of town (in very
low light conditions) was poorest.

Field of view
In general the field of view was good and the subject
action was captured well. On occasion action was missed
that could be heard off camera.

Framing of subject
Generally this was good, but at times and sometimes for
the entire recording the alignment of the camera was off
to the side of the action – often cutting the subject
vertically down the middle.

Light/colour
The colour balance in low or street lighting may be an
issue, as the black/blue officer uniform can appear light
blue. This may cause conflict with statements in court
where perhaps the court see the offender’s dark blue
garment compared with a light blue garment shown in
the recorded video footage.

Sound clarity
The sound quality was usually good. However, some of 2.5 MARKETING
the recordings suffered, as it appears that the volume It was apparent during the evaluation that attention had
may have accidentally become adjusted on the recording been paid to ensuring that marketing of the pilot was
unit. effective. To this end the following was observed:
Availability • good marketing of the pilot around the city, with
The assessment looked to view 55 recordings. However, evidence of posters (see above) in the public houses
due to some software issues, 7 would not play on the and specifically designed street signage in and around
software and 3 were not present. the centre of the night-time economy areas;
• good media liaison with the local newspaper and
frequent national coverage;
• good presence on the force website – 19,523 hits
from October 2006 to the end of March 2007;

66 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

• local, national and international television coverage; Where victims were not aware that the head camera was
and being used the reason given often related to the victim
being embroiled in an assault or under the influence of
• to date there has been no adverse publicity in relation
alcohol.
to the use of head cameras.
The majority of victims thought that the head camera
2.6 VICTIM FEEDBACK was beneficial during the incident.
The victim survey questioned 36 people. The
questionnaire can be found in Annex 3. All but one of the victims thought that head cameras
should be used by all police officers. The majority of
The profile of the group questioned is as follows: victims felt safer as a result of the police wearing head
cameras.
Gender Count
When asked to make a general comment on the use of
Male 26
head cameras, the majority of victims who volunteered a
Female 10 response were positive about the use of the technology
36 as shown by the results below.

Comment Count Percent

Ethnicity Count
Positive comment 18 50.0%
White British 34
Negative comment 2 5.6%
Bangladesh/British citizen 1
No comment 16 44.4%
Asian/Arab 1
36
Age range Count

17 1 2.7 PUBLIC AWARENESS

While very limited public feedback has been received as
18–25 19 above, the Project Team have commissioned a full
26–35 5 independent survey, the results of which will be available
at the time of the launch in mid-July 2007.
36–45 3
46–55 6
Not stated 2
36

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 67

Summary of results from victim feedback survey.

Yes No Don’t
know
Were you aware that the head camera was being used? 15 21 0
Do you feel that the use of the head camera was beneficial at the time of the incident? 26 5 5
Do you think that the head camera should be used by all police officers? 35 1 0
Do you feel safer as a result of police wearing head cameras? 29 5 2

68 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

3. Technology

3.1 BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY developed by the Project Team that is lighter, has more
This section provides a brief overview of the technology. adjustment and better padding for improved comfort.
The cable linking the camera to the recording unit (via
3.1.1 Equipment
the microphone) originally could have posed a strangle
As a police service, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
risk, but a newer model used has a break point and coiled
are not in a position to make any recommendations for
cable device to minimise risk.
or against any individual supplier regarding the head
camera equipment used during the pilot. Each force
3.1.3 Durability and quality
should make its own judgement regarding the
The camera produces a good image, with the newer
appropriate company that could provide the necessary
generation of cameras offering even better performance
equipment. A full technical specification of the
in very low levels of light by automatically switching
equipment is available earlier in this document.
from colour to monochrome. The camera works well in
Essentially, the system consists of a small camera fixed to conditions of variable lighting as is common in some
a headband. The camera is connected to a recording unit public houses and clubs. Good recording quality of
consisting of a digital hard disk drive (HDD) and a small moving images was demonstrated by the images
liquid crystal display (LCD) screen for reviewing images captured while an officer was driving to an incident.
recorded.
The heavy duty battery for the unit takes approximately
6 hours to fully charge and will run for 8 to 12 hours. The
hard drive that records the footage is shock resistant to
minimise sudden movement disrupting the recording
and has the capacity to hold 400 hours of footage. The
unit is supplied with a compact (3-hour) battery. During
the project there were no problems reported relating to
battery life. A potential problem identified is that while
officers are wearing the unit within their utility vest, the
battery may move from the contact points, resulting in a
powering down of the recording unit.

3.2 ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY

This section examines the uptake of the technology
It is anticipated that the police officer would wear the during the trial. Information was made available by the
head camera unit with the recorder placed within their back office facility (BOF) and included information on:
utility vest.
• when head cameras were booked out and by whom;
3.1.2 Safety and ergonomics • what footage was submitted and for which incident
Previous small-scale pilot trials have already identified a logs; and
number of potential issues relating to safety and comfort
of the system. These are being investigated with a view • which incidents and crimes the cameras were used for.
to further develop the system in future models. A new
style of headband for holding the camera has been

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 69

3.2.1 Deployment and use of head cameras
Graph 9 shows the average number of cameras in use
during each day of the week. The increase on Friday and
Saturday nights is because the pilot focused on crimes of
violence and their prevalence during the evening and
night-time economy.

Graph 9: Average number of head cameras booked out

18

16

14
Cameras booked out

12

10

0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

70 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Graph 10: Booking out duration
35%

30%

25%
Frequency

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Duration booked out – hours

The frequency graph above shows the duration for

which the cameras were booked out. The majority were
booked out for the entire shift of between 8 and 10
hours.

Usage by officer
According to the feedback from the officer survey
conducted, only three officers used the camera on every
shift, the majority using them less often – as shown by
the table below.

Never Sometimes Always

Do you use a head camera on each shift? 19 78 3

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 71

Graph 11 shows the number of times each regular user
(i.e. officers who used the camera at least once a week)
booked out a head camera.

Graph 11: Booking out by officer

80
Number of times booked out

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Officer

In total, records existed for 150 officers, but many had

only booked cameras out a few times and are not shown
on Graph 11. Clearly the technology has been accepted by
some more than others, so as another indicator Graph 12
shows the number of recordings made by each officer.

Graph 12: Recordings made by each officer

350
Number of times used

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
1 2 21 6 3 11 10 4 9 14 5 23 12 48 18 79 16 41 143 19 38 55 30 8 7 44 59 15 118 56 148 60 117 20 88 54 28 17 57 25

Officer

72 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Usage over the week
Graph 13 compares the number of incidents, cameras in
use, number of recordings submitted and the number of
evidential recordings on each hour of the week for
Plymouth BCU.

Graph 13: Incident, camera use and tape submission profile

Incident volume Cameras booked out Tape records Evidential tapes

Profile during week
Mon 00:00

Mon 06:00

Mon 12:00

Mon 18:00

Wed 00:00

Wed 06:00

Wed 12:00

Wed 18:00

Sun 00:00

Sun 06:00

Sun 12:00

Sun 18:00
Thu 00:00

Thu 06:00

Thu 12:00

Thu 18:00
Tue 00:00

Tue 06:00

Tue 12:00

Tue 18:00

Sat 00:00

Sat 06:00

Sat 12:00

Sat 18:00
Fri 00:00

Fri 06:00

Fri 12:00

Fri 18:00

Hour of the week

Unsurprisingly, footage submitted follows a similar

profile to cameras booked out. However, there is
potential opportunity to use the cameras more outside of
the Friday and Saturday evening periods, dependent on
resources available.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 73

3.2.2 Length of footage
Analysis of the length of recording is shown in Graph 14,
indicating that 30% of submitted footage was less than
4 minutes long and 60% under 10 minutes long. This
analysis has implications if any force were considering
sharing footage over their force computer network where
file size should be considered.

Graph 14: Event recording duration

100%

90%

80%

70%
Proportion

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Minutes

74 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

3.2.3 Use at incident types
A summary of the feedback from the officer
questionnaire sheet is shown in Graph 15. Officers
reported that the majority of time they used the camera it
was for Operation Talon (Plymouth BCU evening and
night-time policing strategy).

Graph 15: Head camera applications

18%
% of use (officer questionaire)

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
Op Talon patrol

Public order offences

Domestic violence

Drunk and disorderly

Anti-social behaviour

Stop and search

Routine foot patrol

Criminal damage

Violent crime

Vehicle crime

Warrants S18 searches

RTC

Drug-related crime

Burglary

Bail curfew log

Task

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 75

The officers perceived that they used the head cameras on
Operation Talon, public order and domestic violence the
most. Analysis of the recordings submitted in Graph 16
shows that the majority of footage was against ‘Other
assault (ABH)’.

Graph 16: Use of camera by crime type

40%

35%

30%
Frequency

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Other assault (ABH)

Criminal damage

Common assault

Shoplifting

Other crime

Drug offences

Domestic burglary

Other theft

Sexual offences

Serious assault

Robbery

Other burglary

Theft of vehicle/TWOC

Fraud and forgery

3.3 HEAD CAMERA ISSUES

The officer questionnaire also asked for feedback on the
technology. From an early stage the headband that holds
the camera was reported to be uncomfortable. In the
questionnaire only 12 officers found no issue with the
comfort of the headband.

Never Sometimes Always

Is the headband uncomfortable? 12 45 44

For other defects officers were able to complete a defect

report form. Where officers had concerns or had
identified defects, only 45.6% of these were reported.

Have you encountered any problems with the head camera? 79

If yes, did you submit a defect report? 36
45.6%

76 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

The questionnaire asked for officer feedback on the
issues identified, with the results shown in Graph 17.

Graph 17: Camera defects

50%
% of officers experiencing issues

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Unit turning Camera Record switch Airwave Camera Camera out
itself off misaligned not working disruption becoming hot of focus

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 77

Home Office questionnaire The majority of the forces questioned were storing
The issues above are similar to those reported in a recorded files on laptops or standalone computers. Some
feedback survey carried out with other forces by the had integrated the system into the force network.
Home Office.
Data management Count %
A questionnaire was sent to a number of forces known
Standalone 13 76.5%
to be examining the application of head cameras. In total
17 questionnaires were returned with information Network 4 23.5%
relating to the use of head cameras. In the main, forces
were all using a head camera with the recorder secured in Minimal issues were reported with the data side of the
a utility pouch. Three forces are not using head-mounted technology as shown below.
cameras: North Wales Police had the camera mounted Data issues Count %
on the shoulder, West Midlands Police had a chest-
mounted camera, and Greater Manchester Police had the Quality 3 17.6%
camera mounted on a cycle helmet. Other 1 5.9%
Across those responding to the questionnaire, a total of Loss 1 5.9%
119 cameras were in operation by the forces questioned.
The problems encountered are summarised below and Several comments were returned relating to possible
show that the head mounting has been identified as an improvements. These are summarised below in no
area for concern. particular order of importance or viability.

Issue Count Forces % Improvement Comment

Headband 13 14 92.9% WiFi To join camera to recorder

Camera 6 17 35.3% Switch Improve operation

Hard drive 5 17 29.4% Robustness Make recorder more durable

Software 5 17 29.4% Quick start Remove standby mode

Process Optimise submission
Headbands were in use by 14 forces and 13 of them process
identified a comfort issue. Levelling device Method to ensure correct
framing of image
The camera, hard drive and software posed fewer
problems. Headgear Improve comfort of
headband
Zoom Option for camera to zoom
in/out
HDD harness Improved holder for recorder
Compact Make device more compact
Body armour mount Provide attachment for body
armour

78 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

3.4 OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 3.4.2 What would change your view?
The questionnaire asked officers participating in the Following the first question, officers were asked what
Plymouth pilot for reasons why they had not worn or would persuade them to use the head camera more often.
were put off wearing the head camera, and about what The answers were split into the following categories.
should be addressed in order to resolve the issues.
A précis of the results of the officer questionnaire can be Ergonomics
found in Annex 1 and are summarised below. The vast majority of suggestions related to improving
the comfort of wearing the unit and its integration into
3.4.1 Reasons for not wearing the head camera police uniform.
The answers given for not wearing the head camera fall
into the following categories. Technical
Comments were specifically aimed at making the unit
Ergonomics more compact, robust and user friendly.
Half of the questionnaires returned stated that the
comfort of the equipment was the main reason for not Process
wearing it more often. Issues relating to the headband, One suggestion related to improving the evidence
the location of the recording unit in the utility vest and submission process and integration with existing force
the integration with body armour or helmet were all computer systems.
mentioned.
3.5 ISSUES WITH EQUIPMENT AND
Role based TECHNOLOGY
From the officer questionnaire replies, 20% stated that The issues raised in the questionnaire are discussed in
they did not use the head camera due to the nature of further detail below.
their role at the time (i.e. supervisor, driver of a police
vehicle or role restrictions). 3.5.1 Headband
There have been issues with comfort when wearing the
Technical head camera for long durations. These are focused
Some officers found that they could not grasp the around the headband and include:
technology, and were concerned about some of the • pressure from the headband, resulting in pain around
issues relating to accidental activation of cameras (which the temples and nausea;
could be attributable to software or user error issues).
• the fitting of the camera is uncomfortable when a
Process helmet is worn; and
A few officers cited the logistical issues of submitting
• the headband can squeeze the officer’s ear around
recorded evidence and obtaining the cameras from a
their radio earpiece.
station other than their base, and that this may limit their
use of the technology. Some other issues relating to the headband include:

Other • wearing while driving can be a distraction; and

Some officers commented that they were not convinced • alignment of the camera, i.e. ensuring that the camera
the technology would save them time. is pointing directly ahead.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 79

Some officers favour specific cameras as they find a activated. This is being addressed by the Project Team – a
particular headband is more comfortable and the development under consideration is a more positive ‘on’
directional stability of the camera bracket is more switch and the need to press a combination of buttons to
positive than others. turn the unit off.
It is perceived that head-mounted is the best option, as it 3.5.5 Interference with AirWave
captures what the officer sees. Wearing the device on the There have been reports that the unit interferes with the
body may leave the officer open to attack as they may AirWave system and vice versa. Further testing by the
have to turn their back fully on others present at an Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB)
incident. There are smaller and lighter cameras on the indicates this to be the case and this is addressed fully in
market that could reduce the load of the headband; the ‘Technical specifications’ section of this document
however, a smaller camera may be classified as covert. which stipulates the testing required to ensure
This issue is being addressed through the User Group compatibility.
with the trial of some prototypes designed by one of the
team members and is being independently manufactured. 3.6 TRAINING COURSE
During the introduction to this project, a representative
3.5.2 Integration with uniform of ‘Process Evolution’ attended a training course to
In addition to the camera, the officer carries a recording understand more about the technology and review the
unit (complete with screen) which is carried within the training material and delivery.
utility pouch. The Project Team has revised the cable A qualified police trainer led the course supported by a
design to make it shorter and incorporate a safety break member of the Project Team who presented the
point. Some minor modifications could be made to a technical aspects of the head camera. The training
utility vest to securely hold the recording unit. package has been further developed and has been sent to
The Project Team has identified the need to develop the the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) for
technology further. One system under consideration accreditation.
could utilise flash memory, standard AA batteries and be
splash proof. 3.7 USER GROUP
A User Group has been set up to identify issues and
3.5.3 Software issues benefits during the pilot. This User Group has already
Some software issues have arisen during the trial and are started to address some of the issues raised and share
currently being addressed. It was hoped to have a more good practice and ideas.
detailed update regarding the software, but investigations
are still ongoing.

3.5.4 Remote switch

There have been issues with the remote switch used to
operate the recording unit. The small switch
(incorporating the microphone) is designed to be worn
on the officer’s lapel and can be difficult to operate,
especially if the officer is wearing gloves. There is little
feedback sensation from the switch to indicate if it has

80 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

4. Process

4.1 PROCESS ANALYSIS

This section documents some of the key activities along
the process.

Incident process map

Start shift

Allocation/
dispatch

Attend and deal

with incident

Admin detection
No action Arrest
or PND

Incident outcome at scene

Custody

Prep interview

Interview

Bail Disposal
PND No further
Caution action
Warning Charge

Full file prep

YES NO
Plead guilty Case prep

Court

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 81

The process map on page 81 shows where incidents 4.4 SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE
could potentially terminate along the process. At the end of the shift, officers complete a submission
form detailing the incidents at which the head camera
During the pilot, officers submitted 3,055 recordings.
was used. The submission form is available electronically
Approximately 1,000 of the recordings related to general
for officers to complete, but it is not possible at this time
patrol and did not link to specific incident logs. Of the
to submit it electronically. This therefore requires staff at
3,055 recordings, 1,170 related to specific incident log
the BOF to input this information manually. If there is
records. Of these, 479 related to crimes and 256 resulted
evidence relating to a prisoner in custody and the footage
in arrest.
is required immediately, the officers have the facility to
4.2 THE BOOKING IN AND OUT PROCESS produce their own copies of the recording via a local
In Plymouth the officer attends the back office facility standalone laptop computer.
(BOF) located at Charles Cross Police Station in order to
4.4.1 Back office facility (BOF)
book out a head camera. The South and Central sectors
The BOF requires two technicians to staff the office
are also based within the same building; therefore the
from 07:00 to 15:00, seven days a week. There is extra
booking out process is fairly quick. However, if the pilot
cover between 10:00 and 18:00, Monday to Wednesday,
were to be more widely implemented across either the
to accommodate requests for the burning of disks for
BCU or the force, then the booking out procedure would
court and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
need further development.
requirements. Their primary tasks are file management,
4.3 OFFICER PATROL equipment maintenance and archive database
The officers take the camera on patrol, and as soon as management.
they are tasked to respond to an incident the camera
File management
should be turned on. This will provide evidence that
Head camera recordings are retained for a period of time
could show suspects leaving the scene. While at the
in line with the legislation on data collection and
scene, the camera should continue to record the events.
retention. Information within the footage may become
If an arrest is made the recording should continue until
relevant at a later date. File management involves
the prisoner is handed over to the custody staff for
maintaining the recorded evidence on the computer
processing. During the pilot, good evidence was captured
system and providing appropriate sections of footage to
of a detainee in transit to custody where his words and
interested parties.
behaviour demonstrated his intention to commit further
more serious offences.
Equipment maintenance
The BOF technician makes a copy of the evidential
information recorded by the head camera and saves it
onto a master and a working disk. The head camera unit
is then cleaned of all footage and charged for the next
usage.

82 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Archive database management 4.7 COURT ISSUES
The BOF technicians record the incident log details As stated previously, the courts were provided with the
against the footage on the database, detailing information appropriate facilities and training to enable them to play
such as: head camera footage, but to date specific data is not
available. However, through anecdotal evidence it is
• date/time
apparent that when shown head camera footage, the
• location courts are able to assimilate the demeanour of the
offender and the nature of the offence in more detail. It
• offence type (or types)
affords the judiciary a more realistic overview and first-
• offender visual description hand experience of the incident and the circumstances
surrounding it.
• MO (modus operandi)
• arrests

4.5 PRISONER HANDLING

The Prisoner Handling Unit (PHU) has access to the
recorded footage and will take a decision to review the
recording to assist them in preparing for interview, or
following an initial interview, in order to seek clarification
of events. In one example, a victim of domestic violence
aged 19 years old stated on head camera that she had
been seeing her older boyfriend for 5 years. This then led
to additional charges being brought against the detainee
following the review of the footage.

4.6 CPS
The data provided by the CPS throughout the pilot has
been limited and thus does not provide an accurate
picture on finalisation categories. This has been due to
various reasons and it is clear that an improved protocol
of procedures to follow on both sides should be
developed. CPS Direct will still not be able to view the
head camera footage due to their location and the current
procedures in place, for the same reasons that they are
unable to view CCTV.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 83

5. Issues and benefits

The focus of this pilot was to prove or disprove the Process

concept of head camera technology for use by the police. Some officers found negative issues with the process of
This section reports on the issues that have arisen to date submitting the forms and the need to continue to submit
in adopting the new technology. The benefits, concerns statements.
and feedback from the officers using the equipment are
discussed in anecdotal form. These should not distract 5.2 BENEFIT EXAMPLES TO DATE
from the overall positive indications around head camera The following examples were raised during discussions
usage by the police, but nevertheless represent issues that with police officers during the course of the project.
require further consideration before wider adoption of
the technology. • A domestic violence incident where injuries were
sustained by the victim and an initial account of
5.1 OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE how they were inflicted was recorded. This was
This section examines the results from the questionnaire followed up with a written statement which was
sent to all officers trained in using the head cameras. subsequently withdrawn. A victim-reluctant
A précis of the results/comments can be found in prosecution was pursued and a successful
Annex 1. conviction with a custodial sentence of 90 days
for assault was achieved.
5.1.1 Positive comments
• A serious violent assault occurred in the street
Evidence following an incident within a public house,
Half of the questionnaires suggested that the quality of during which a male had half his ear bitten off.
evidence captured by the head camera was the most The police were able to track the departure and
positive aspect. subsequent location of the offender in a taxi by
using CCTV in conjunction with head camera
Respect footage. This secured vital evidence and
A quarter of questionnaires stated that the respect gained maintained the continuity of the incident, which
from the public when using the head camera and its value led to an early guilty plea and successful
as a deterrent and in calming the situation down were of prosecution. A sentence of two years’
significant value. imprisonment was passed.

5.1.2 Negative comments

Good use has also been made of the head cameras for
Comfort observations at football matches and intelligence
The majority (over 60%) of the negative comments purposes. It is also useful in addressing high-volume
related to the comfort of wearing the head band. crime, such as anti-social behaviour, criminal damage,
graffiti tagging, etc.
Technology
A third of officers cited issues with the recording unit 5.3 CONCERNS
being bulky and occasionally unreliable. There have been a few incidents reported where the head
camera has been accidentally knocked off during scuffles
(while making arrests). As the footage was not available,
the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to

84 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

include the charge of resisting arrest, a charge that may Example 2: Police community support officer
have been pursued before the introduction of head A police community support officer (PCSO) was
cameras. These examples demonstrate that officers must interviewed for feedback on the head camera. They use
not rely solely on head camera evidence for their case and the head camera at every opportunity, and for comfort
must ensure that they have the necessary evidence from keep it resting around the neck when not in use. The
traditional sources. biggest benefit they have noticed is respect when
engaging with the public.
• An incident of a drunk and disorderly arrest
resulted in the CPS rejecting the case as “People change the way they speak once they realise that the camera
insufficient evidence was recorded on the head is there. I now see some people looking for a camera and this can
camera. “The camera can be a bit of a double- arouse suspicion. When I’m not wearing the camera I see a
edged weapon, as without the video I [the officer] noticeable change in perceived attitude.”
would have got a charge.” The PCSO finds that the camera is an excellent deterrent
• At another incident, the officer’s camera was and is very effective for capturing footage of underage
knocked off and did not capture an assault. “Even drinking and people drinking in areas designated alcohol
though I submitted my notes, the CPS didn’t free – where before offenders would throw away drinks
progress case as no footage.” and claim that they had not been drinking.
One example given was in addressing a long-term (six
5.4 OFFICER FEEDBACK (ANECDOTAL) months) issue of youths abusing city centre cleaners.
This quickly stopped when the PCSO started to wear the
Example 1: Officer head camera, resulting in praise from cleaners and their
An officer with 13 years’ policing experience uses the managers and increased motivation in their job.
head camera every shift and thinks they are an invaluable
piece of equipment. Issues experienced by the PCSO included:
“Can’t see any reasons why everybody isn’t wearing them!” • discomfort after approximately six to eight hours’ use
(despite taking it off during the day for breaks);
“All officers trained but some shy away from the technology,
thinking that it is a bit daunting. All they need to do is turn on, • poor durability (of the camera mount/headband);
check the date and check it is working. Any submitted evidence is a and
simple procedure with submission sheet attached to the case.”
• on/off switch issues.
“When processing an arrestee the submission of the report is
reduced. A decent arrest statement could be 5–6 pages and take Prisoner Handling Unit
(typically) 45–60 minutes. This reduces to 20–30 minutes with the Feedback from the Prisoner Handling Unit is positive.
head camera.” For example:
The officer felt that further benefit will result from a • footage of an aggrieved person who had been
reduced need to call officers to court, an increase in the assaulted allowed the interviewing officer to clearly
number of offenders admitting the offence and a better see the severity of their injuries;
conviction rate. The officer finds the camera comfortable
to wear but is concerned by the ease with which the • picture quality is good and clearly identifies the
camera could be knocked off during a fight. offender;

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 85

• officers are capturing the arrest – this is useful
because it shows the mood and demeanour of the
person arrested; and
• footage is easily obtained from the back office facility
technicians for interview.

5.5 OTHER COMMENTS

During the course of the project, numerous positive
comments were made by police officers, some of which
are documented below:
“I would feel naked without it” (Officer)
“Fantastic piece of evidence” (Officer)
“I take one out every shift” (Officer)
“I can’t speak highly enough of the technology” (Pre-Charge
Case Review)
“I do not go out on patrol now unless I have my radio and head
camera”

5.6 OTHER USES OF THE TECHNOLOGY

It has been identified that head camera technology could
be of benefit to the police in a wide variety of
applications, including the ongoing development of
officers, the training of officers, use by forensics officers
at major crime scenes and during searches/warrants.

86 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

5.7 SUMMARY OF OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE
FEEDBACK
Benefit/ Description Implication
issue
Benefit Respect on patrol Members of the public, and noticeably youths,
show more respect
Benefit Dealing with large groups Large groups are less confrontational when the
officer is wearing the head camera
Benefit Capturing of information ‘A picture tells a thousand words’
Benefit Capturing witnesses’ details Good tool for capturing witness names and
addresses
Benefit Stop-checking cars – and ensuring that Good record of exactly who was driving the
the driver does not give false details vehicle
Benefit Recording details of vehicles Could be revenue generating, providing
(description, condition and position) information to insurance companies in the same
following a road traffic collision way as the National Collision Recording Form
(currently charged at £110)
Issue Wearing camera headband In limited reported cases can be uncomfortable
and cumbersome
Issue Record switch In limited reported cases resulted in missed
recordings and accidental recordings
Issue Recording unit design A little bulky and does not integrate well with
existing uniform options

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 87

6. Conclusions

This section of the report summarises the main statistically detections have increased and violent crime
conclusions that we can draw from the findings has decreased. These, combined with the increased time
contained in Sections 2 to 5. officers spend on patrol as a result of head camera use,
are important factors in increasing police visibility and
6.1 KEY OBJECTIVES public reassurance.
Below are listed the conclusions relating to the key
objectives defined for the trial. 6.2 ISSUES
This subsection contains conclusions relating to the use
6.1.1 Crime reduction of the technology and the process by which it was
A small reduction was observed in the overall level of implemented in Devon and Cornwall.
violent crime; while in the right direction, the reduction is
not considered statistically significant, and given the scale 6.2.1 Technology
of reduction it is not possible to isolate the effect of • Overall image and sound quality were sufficient for
head cameras on this statistic. purpose. There were some concerns about the
accuracy of colour reproduction under certain
6.1.2 Sanction detection lighting conditions. It therefore needs to be
A significant improvement in the detection rate of recognised that, for practical reasons, there may be
violent crime has occurred during the period of the trial. occasions when there is a disparity between written
evidence and available footage.
6.1.3 Offenders brought to justice
Due to the elapsed process time from crime occurrence • Many officers stated that they found the equipment
to court, it is not possible to quantify the benefits on uncomfortable to wear, in extreme cases citing nausea
offences brought to justice. However, anecdotal evidence after prolonged use. These concerns need to be
suggests that head camera footage affords the judiciary a addressed in order for the technology to be widely
more realistic overview of the circumstances and first- accepted.
hand experience of the incident. • A minority of officers found the technology complex
to use, and in some cases evidence was not captured
6.1.4 Efficiency
from incidents due to issues with the recording
Both quantitative and qualitative evidence supports the
switch. Of most concern is where the prosecution
view that head cameras reduce the amount of time spent
does not progress due to a lack of head camera
by officers on paperwork and file preparation.
footage, even though other sufficient evidence may
6.1.5 Complaints have been available.
While statistically significant evidence is not available, • A combination of comfort, usability and other issues
there were no specific instances during the trial period meant that there was significant variation in usage
where complaints were received against police officers rates by individual officers.
using head cameras.
6.2.2 Process
6.1.6 Public satisfaction • The location and implementation process of back
It is important to note that a significant reduction in office facility functions need to be considered so that
police officer time spent on paperwork has been officers do not spend longer than necessary collecting
achieved due to the use of the head camera and and returning cameras.

88 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

• The overall number of cameras required could be
reduced by using separate batteries that could be
charged offline.
• The overall number of cameras required could be
reduced by using removable memory that could be
processed separately.

6.3 IN SUMMARY
We believe that the use of head cameras is a positive step
that will make a difference to detection rates and crime
levels for violent crime and disorder in particular. At this
stage in the trial, there are some areas where the extent of
these benefits cannot be stated. The issues that we have
raised should all be surmountable; their resolution should
contribute further to the successful adoption of the
technology and hence to realisation of the benefits.
We therefore recommend that:
• the extended pilot is assessed further in 12 months
using the quantitative measures we have developed;
and
• re-engagement with officers who have yet to embrace
the technology occurs once some of the issues raised
with the head cameras have been addressed and the
success of this re-engagement measured.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 89

7. Future use of head cameras

This section examines some of the aspects relating to

using the technology in a higher proportion of crimes
across the Police Service. The need to adapt the process
to enable easy submission of recorded footage and
maximise camera utilisation is discussed and evaluated in
two simulation models.

7.1 CURRENT PROCESS

7.1.1 Process map
The current process for head cameras is shown in the
process map opposite. Officers obtain the device from
the back office facility (BOF), use the cameras on shift
and return them to the BOF. The BOF then processes
the cameras, copying the data from the camera recording
unit to a standalone computer. The camera units are then
recharged before being made available for another
officer to use.

90 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Head camera process map

Back office staff

Police officer
Select camera unit Enter log number –
from shelf this will display all
records for that log
START

Master disk of
Connect to main
incident created by
Obtain camera from computer
database software
back office

Make working copy

Enter log data into
of master disk on
Take head camera database software
copy machine
on patrol

Seal disks and

Synchronise camera
complete disk log
unit with computer
Record incidents form

Delete all files from Check incident log

camera unit on computer system
Pack camera in case
and book in

Connect camera unit Log closed

to power and charge properly?
Complete submission
form YES
More
cameras Send fax to update
YES waiting? log with closing code
Place camera on ‘Head camera used’
returned camera shelf NO
Update crime system
Logs prioritised if
with note ‘Head
prisoner in custody
camera footage’

Store disks in
drawer unit

More logs
YES to process?

NO

END

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 91

7.1.2 Dynamic simulation
A dynamic simulation model was built of the current
pilot process to establish the utilisation of the camera
units. Unlike a static model, a dynamic model caters for
variances in process demands and can emulate more
closely the real process.
The model was built in SIMUL8™ to represent the
process employed in the pilot. To facilitate easy
interaction with the model, a Microsoft® Excel® interface
was also built to set model parameters and analyse model
results. A screen shot of the model is shown below.

The model was populated with appropriate data from the

pilot project, including:
• camera demand over the course of the week;
• number of cameras available;
• duration camera was used for;
• process times of the BOF activities to download
camera data and to charge camera units; and
• operational shift pattern of the BOF.
The key process times are shown in the diagram at the
top of page 93.

92 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Model inputs
Step Icon Description Comments Data source Resource

Obtain camera, plug in For each camera

to computer and enter returned with footage Time Distribution Min Most likely Max Pool
1 details into database (even non-evidential)
Process Triangle 1 1.5 2 Mins Officer

Probability of camera Repair duration then

needing repair probability Repair Distribution Min Most likely Max % chance
2
Duration away Triangle 20 22 25 Days 0.60%

Time taken to charge

the camera – minimum Repair Distribution Mean Std Dev x Pool
3 Place on charge
delay (no resource
Charge Normal 480 50 Mins None
required)

Cameras available in pool 50

The demand profile over the week was taken from an

amalgamation of the pilot data, then the demand scaled
up with the officers requesting 180 cameras in the week.
The demand profile is shown in Graph 18.

Graph 18: Booking-out demand

4%
Proportion of cameras requested

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0
Mon 00:00

Mon 08:00

Mon 16:00

Tue 00:00

Tue 08:00

Tue 16:00

Wed 00:00

Wed 08:00

Wed 16:00

Thu 00:00

Thu 08:00

Thu 16:00

Fri 00:00

Fri 08:00

Fri 16:00

Sat 00:00

Sat 08:00

Sat 16:00

Sun 00:00

Sun 08:00

Sun 16:00

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 93

Each time a camera is booked out, the following
distribution (Graph 19) is sampled to obtain a duration
time for which the camera is used by the officer.

Graph 19: Booking-out duration

35%

30%
Frequency

25%

20%
15%

10%
5%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Hours booked out

When run, the model produced the results shown in

Graph 20.

Graph 20: Camera positions in process

On patrol Waiting process Repair On charge Available
50
45
Number of cameras

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mon 00:00

Mon 08:00

Mon 16:00

Tue 00:00

Tue 08:00

Tue 16:00

Wed 00:00

Wed 08:00

Wed 16:00

Thu 00:00

Thu 08:00

Thu 16:00

Fri 00:00

Fri 08:00

Fri 16:00

Sat 00:00

Sat 08:00

Sat 16:00

Sun 00:00

Sun 08:00

Sun 16:00

The number of cameras in different stages of the

process is shown by the hourly profile in Graph 20. Most
cameras are in use on Friday and Saturday nights.

94 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Graph 21 shows the average number of times during the
week that cameras were not available in the simulation
model and a failure to meet demand was recorded.

Graph 21: Failed to deliver

Number of cameras

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Mon 00:00

Mon 08:00

Mon 16:00

Tue 00:00

Tue 08:00

Tue 16:00

Wed 00:00

Wed 08:00

Wed 16:00

Thu 00:00

Thu 08:00

Thu 16:00

Fri 00:00

Fri 08:00

Fri 16:00

Sat 00:00

Sat 08:00

Sat 16:00

Sun 00:00

Sun 08:00

Sun 16:00

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 95

 Summary data
Detail Average deployment
Cameras available 50 On patrol 8.5 17.2%
Average cameras requested 184 each week Waiting process 6.8 13.7%
Failed to supply 6.7 each week Repair 3.4 6.7%

Hours of camera use 1,432 each week On charge 18.4 36.9%

Available 12.7 25.5%
49.7

7.1.3 Static calculation

Average deployment The workload of officers and the BOF staff is calculated
in Tables 10 and 11. The data is based on data from the
On patrol trial, where the officers used the cameras for 65 shifts in
Waiting process the week and each camera captured evidence from two
Repair incidents, one of which was of evidential value.
On charge
Table 10 relates directly to the process map (as at 7.1.1
Available
above) and includes officer activity visiting the BOF to
collect and later return the equipment along with any
submissions. The table also shows the process of the
BOF staff copying the footage to the computer and
documenting it on the database.

The summary results above show that over 50% of

camera utilisation is lost due to time spent waiting to
process the cameras, charging the camera units and
repairing cameras.

Findings
• Fifty cameras are sufficient to enable deployment of
180 units in the week over a similar demand profile
exhibited in the pilot.
• With a camera demand profile varying over the week,
as discussed, the average camera utilisation will be less
than 20%. In addition, utilisation opportunity is lost
waiting for camera units to be processed and charged.

96 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Table 10: BOF static workload calculation
Average camera Average Weekly workload (min)
use time (min) camera use
per week
No. Activity Officer BOF Officer BOF
1 Go to back office * other stations 2.5 65 162.5 0

2 Book camera out 0.6 65 39 0

3 Return to back office 2.5 65 162.5 0
4 Book camera in 0.4 65 26 0
5 Fill in submission form (may do before return) 20 65 1,300 0

6 Package camera 1 65 65 0
7 Connect camera to computer 0.5 65 0 32.5

8 Enter log data 4 150 0 600

9 Synchronise recording unit 2 65 0 130
10 Delete recorded files 1 65 0 65
11 Set unit to charge 1 65 0 65
12 Search through to next log 1 50 0 50
13 Burn master disk and write labels and other 10 50 0 500
things
14 Create working copy 5 50 0 250
15 Seal disks 0.5 50 0 25
16 Complete disk log 0.5 50 0 25
17 Store disks 0.5 50 0 25
Minutes per week 1,755 1,767.5
Hours per week 29.25 29
Hours per year 1,521 1,532
Staff per year 0.9 0.9

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 97

Table 11 shows additional activity undertaken by the
BOF in maintaining the equipment and supplying
evidence to interested parties. Many of the initial
recordings are now being requested if the case
progresses to court. The Project Team believes that this
will rise over the next few months when the positive
evidential implications of head camera footage become
more widely recognised.

Table 11: Other back office tasks

Average camera Average Weekly workload (min)
use time (min) camera use
per week
No. Activity Officer BOF Officer BOF
1 Officer enquiries 20 30 20 400 600
2 Other use of technology by staff/officers 10 10 21 210 210
3 Maintaining log sheets 10 7 0 70

4 Printing photographs 14 1 0 14
5 Issuing disks 15 13 0 195
6 Unpackaging disks 10 7 0 70
7 Fault tracking and reporting (defects) 10 10 0 100
8 Checking officer opinion of fault 5 10 0 50
9 Date folder issues 1.5 14 0 21
10 Maintaining sign-out sheets 30 7 0 210
Minutes per week 610 1,540
Hours per week 10.2 25.7
Hours per year 529 1,335
Staff per year 0.30 0.76

Total staff/year
(Tables 10 + 11) 1,755.30 1,768.26

98 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Officers surveyed, acknowledged that the existence of
the BOF encouraged them to use the cameras.

No Less Same Total Percent no or less

Would you use as much if no back office? 34 52 15 101 85.1%

7.1.4 Implications of the roll-out

The implications of expanding the pilot with the same At the end of the shift all cards containing any data
process design include the following: would be returned by courier to the BOF for processing
in a similar way as at present. The BOF would not,
• More cameras will be required if the deployment is to however, have to spend time managing working copies
rise above 180 shifts in the week. of evidential cards.
• More staff in the BOF will be required to process the With a second battery and an offline charging unit, the
evidence. In addition, depending on the size of the camera would then be ready for immediate
scale-up, an additional computer terminal may be redeployment.
required to process the cameras quickly enough to
allow them to be redeployed.
• If the roll-out were to incorporate other stations, the
time taken for officers to collect and return cameras
to the BOF would have to be taken into
consideration. Potentially, cameras in transit would
be another factor limiting utilisation.

7.2 PROPOSED PROCESS

The process described below is a possible way of
handling the benefits of using removable flash memory
disks and separate batteries that can be charged offline.
This will address the two main issues restricting camera
utilisation. This process has not been developed with Devon and
Cornwall Police.

7.2.1 Process map

The process map on page 100 shows how the process
could look.
The camera population is managed locally at sector level.
Memory cards are booked out for use by the officers and
submitted in the same way as evidence. When an arrest is
made, custody makes a simple CD working copy from
the memory card – this would be a very simple process
(taking less than a minute) using a copy machine/
memory card reader, not a computer.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 99

 Process map for using removable flash memory cards

Back office staff

Police officer

START

Obtain camera and

charged battery from
station

Book out several

flash memory cards

Take head camera

on patrol

Record incidents

Book-in submitted
flash memory cards
Arrest NO
made?

YES Enter log data into

database software
Submit flash card
with detainee

Download data from

Custody unit make flash memory card
simple CD copy

Continue to end Delete files from

of shift flash memory card

YES
Any More
recording disks
made? waiting?

NO
Daily courier run
Complete submission Repackage memory
of flash memory
form and submit flash card for return to officers
cards to back
memory card
office

Place battery on
charge and return END
camera unit

100 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

7.2.2 Dynamic simulation
A simulation model was built to replicate the proposed
process with the aim of quantifying the number of
cameras and memory disks required to deliver the same
service level as under the current process. A screen shot
of the model is shown below.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 101

The process times used are shown below.
Model inputs
Step Icon Description Comments Data source Resource

Obtain camera, plug in For each camera

to computer and enter returned with footage Time Distribution Min Most likely Max Pool
1 details into database (even non-evidential)
Process Triangle 1 1.5 2 Mins None

Probability of camera Repair duration then

needing repair probability Repair Distribution Min Most likely Max % chance
2
Duration away Triangle 20 22 25 Days 0.60%

Time taken by office to

process memory card Delay Distribution Mean Most likely Max Pool
3 Place on charge
Charge Triangle 1 1.5 2 Mins Officer

Cameras available in pool 25

Memory disks in pool 42

The number of cameras was reduced by half to 25 and

the number of memory cards available was set at 125.
All other model parameters, including demand level,
remained the same. When run, the model produced the
results shown in Graph 22.

Graph 22: Camera positions in process

On patrol Waiting process Repair On charge Available

50

45
Number of cameras

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Tue 00:00

Tue 08:00

Tue 16:00

Thu 00:00

Thu 08:00

Thu 16:00
Mon 00:00

Mon 08:00

Mon 16:00

Fri 00:00

Fri 08:00

Fri 16:00

Sun 00:00

Sun 08:00

Sun 16:00
Wed 00:00

Wed 08:00

Wed 16:00

Sat 00:00

Sat 08:00

Sat 16:00

102 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Graph 23 shows the number of times during the week
that cameras were not available and a failure to meet
demand was recorded.

Graph 23: Failed to deliver

Number of cameras

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Mon 00:00

Mon 08:00

Mon 16:00

Tue 00:00

Tue 08:00

Tue 16:00

Thu 00:00

Thu 08:00

Thu 16:00

Sun 00:00

Sun 08:00

Sun 16:00
Sat 00:00

Sat 08:00

Sat 16:00
Fri 00:00

Fri 08:00

Fri 16:00
Wed 00:00

Wed 08:00

Wed 16:00

Summary data Average deployment

Detail On patrol 8.8 34.8%
Cameras available 50 Waiting process 0.0 0.1%
Average cameras 184 each week Repair 3.5 14.0%
requested
On charge 0.0 0.0%
Failed to supply 4.3 each week
Available 13.0 51.1%
Hours of camera use 1,485 each week
25.4

Average deployment The summary results above show that the only restriction
to camera utilisation is the need to repair faulty cameras.
On patrol
Waiting process Findings
Repair • Twenty-five cameras and 125 flash memory cards will
On charge
deliver the same service level as 50 of the current
Available
cameras. Within this scenario, three memory cards are
used with each camera provision.
• The delivery system for transferring the memory
cards to and from the BOF will be essential.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 103

• With fewer cameras in the population, reliability is
more critical. Improved reliability and a good service
level from the supplier will be essential to maintain
performance.

7.2.3 Static calculation

The increase in disk submission will be managed in the
BOF by enabling the custody units to easily manufacture
and manage the working and master copies of the
evidence. They will do this by creating a simple copy of
the submitted memory card in a memory card copying
machine.
The estimated workload is given below as a comparison
with the same figures from the pilot (see Table 10,
section 7.1.3).

Table 12: Back office static workload calculation

Average camera Average Weekly workload (min)
use time (min) camera use
per week
No. Activity Officer BOF Officer BOF
1 Book camera out 1 60 60 0

2 Book camera in 1 60 60 0
3 Fill in submission form (may do before return) 2 60 1,200 0
4 Submit memory card 0.5 60 30 0
5 Create working CD of detainee footage 2 100 200 0

6 Book in disks (once per day) 5 7 0 35

7 Enter log data 3.5 300 0 1,050

8 Copy memory card data to database 0.1 60 0 6

9 Delete memory card data 0.1 60 0 6
10 Return memory card 0.2 60 0 12
Minutes per week 1,500 1,109
Hours per week 25 18
Hours per year 1,343 961
Staff per year 0.8 0.6

104 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

 Table 13: Other back office tasks
Average camera Average Weekly workload (min)
use time (min) camera use
per week
No. Activity Officer BOF Officer BOF
1 Officer enquiries 20 30 20 400 600
2 Other use of technology by staff/officers 10 10 21 210 210
3 Printing photographs 14 1 0 14
4 Fault tracking and reporting (defects) 10 10 0 100
5 Checking officer opinion of fault 5 10 0 50
Minutes per week 610 1,540
Hours per week 10.2 25.7
Hours per year 529 1,335
Staff per year 0.3 0.5

Total staff/year 1.0 1.0

(Tables 12 + 13)

7.2.4 Implications of the roll-out

The implications of expanding the pilot with the same
process design include:
• provision of a transportation system to return
memory disks to the BOF;
• provision of memory disk copying machines; and
• potentially, the BOF will still have to manage the
existing camera population.

7.3 SCALED-UP BENEFITS

Assuming that the benefits demonstrated in the pilot are
a fair representation of the technology, then the scaled-
up benefits will have a linear relationship to the pilot’s
benefits.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 105

7.4 ROLL-OUT GUIDANCE
The pilot project has captured some very good data
relating to camera usage by officers. This information
should be utilised to identify officers still to be persuaded
to adopt the technology. Some of the reasons for officers
not using the technology have been documented and are
being addressed (such as the headband and operation
switch). Once viable solutions have been found, the
officers who in the past have shied away from the
technology should be re-introduced to it and their
response captured.
Graph 24 shows the number of times officers have
booked out the head cameras. Some officers have
adopted the technology well and used the cameras
frequently.

Graph 24: Booking-out by officer

Times out Average duration

10
80

9
70
8
Number of times used

60
Duration of use (hours)
7

50
6

40 5

4
30

3
20
2

10
1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Officer

106 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Graph 25 shows the earliest and last date that each of the
top 28 officers booked out the cameras. This information
should be used to identify officers who initially adopted
the technology but have not done so in more recent
weeks, such as officers 17 and 26.

Graph 25: Date span for camera use by officer

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Officer

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25-Mar-07
5-Mar-07
16-Oct-06

15-Dec-06

24-Jan-07

14-Apr-07
4-Jan-07
25-Nov-06
5-Nov-06

13-Feb-07

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 107

Annex 1: Summary of head
camera questionnaire results

WHY ARE OFFICERS NOT USING THE HEAD Prolonged wear extremely uncomfortable and unable to
CAMERAS? wear custodian helmet/flat cap.

Role-based Technical
Acting duties, usually van driver on Operation Talon Camera blocks signal to my Airwave radio, it does not
or crewed with officer who has already got a head stay turned on, very uncomfortable to wear, very bulky,
camera on. camera keeps riding up so miss what want to see.
As a supervisor I ensure that staff have headcams on. Forget to turn unit on when reacting to public order on
I do not routinely wear one as more often than not a Union Street and would prefer a switch to record.
headcam is already present at incidents I attend.
Kept turning on as I moved.
Currently on South/Central LPA Endurance Team in
They turn themselves on occasionally.
plain clothes. Unable to use in plain clothes but have
called marked units with head cameras in to record new Process
nominals/vehicles. It is regarded as a complicated process to get from
Currently the supervisor of an Endurance Team. Our Devonport to back office – if it was just a case of picking
role is predominantly proactive and covert, therefore the it up, going on patrol and upon return burning your own
use of an overt headset is not practical. CD as evidence, it would get used a lot more.
Supervisory role sometimes and on the occasions when Sometimes there is not the time to book one out. It can
I have been operational I have been driving and my be uncomfortable to wear, particularly when wearing
colleague has used the head camera. a hat.
My duties are supervisory although when I know I will Other
be on patrol I will endeavour to use one. Haven’t found that it decreases paperwork at all – still
feel the need to write a full statement. Far too
Ergonomics uncomfortable to wear and the unit is far too big – we
Headband very uncomfortable, unit very heavy and carry enough kit as it is and the unit makes it unbearable.
bulky to wear. Also been driving a bit so not been using
it, but main reasons are heavy and bulky. My crewmate has been using it.
I find wearing it extremely uncomfortable. I have a small WHAT WOULD CHANGE YOUR VIEW?
head and have to bend the headband inwards to prevent
it from slipping down. This then causes the headband to Improved comfort
dig into my temples, causing headaches. A pocket on my vest for it and a more stable headpiece
that remains in place when you take it off.
Mainly due to being uncomfortable and causing
headaches. Headband that you could leave on permanently, negating
the need to realign all the time. Smaller hand-held unit or
Uncomfortable. Headband unit comes off belt easily but a specifically designed pouch on uniform.
is bulky for the utility vest pocket.
More practical headband – it slides down my head or if
Too uncomfortable to wear, problems wearing radio pressed tighter it causes pain to head.
earpiece with it, unit itself too big and nowhere to put it.

108 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

It is a very good product – headband fine for me but Great for evidential reasons and back office facility a
other options or attachments for helmets would be good. lifesaver.
User-friendly headband. Head camera project is excellent and great for visual
evidence.
Would wear it on each shift if it was more comfortable.
Principal idea of head camera is excellent one for
Technical evidence gaining and it is useful to be able to watch an
Smaller hard drive, better camera set-up, something user incident back with regards to training and development,
friendly and also robust. ID purposes, etc. The head camera visibility has acted as
More slim-line and user friendly. a deterrent to people in some cases.
Provides good evidence for traffic-related offences and
Process stop/searches. Useful for domestic violence to show
Instead of completing incident form for every job, is initial actions of aggrieved person/detained person and
there a better way of utilising the IT systems we have, i.e. good evidence when offenders become aggressive after
OIS? Or the jobs that need saving/exhibiting be kept on arrest.
the camera and those that do not need to be retained can
be deleted by the using officer. Respect
Excellent for public order situations when offences are
Other unfolding in front of you and to catch prisoners’
Ability to use camera in plain clothes. demeanour. Counter any false allegations/complaints
On/off device being more stable. by prisoners.
Excellent tool in dispersing groups of youths –
POSITIVE COMMENTS anti-social behaviour.
Evidence Has been used during domestic. Male was very aggressive
Best evidence – good for initial evidence gathering, good and obstructive. When he saw he was being filmed he
deterrent – have noticed on Operation Talon can deter calmed down straight away and was compliant.
people from fighting as know being filmed.
I have used head camera footage in interview – it’s very
Concept extremely good and is of good evidential value clear to watch and listen to even when footage is at night.
– this should be used at all times. It makes good use of Have had lots of positive comments from members of
patrol time by cutting down on some of the paperwork. public and is effective on abusive people as they stop
Good evidence as captures whole incident from police swearing when they see the camera.
arrival, shows more detail than trying to write it down in When completing a stop/search and the detainee saw
statement and acts as a deterrent for some when they see I had a camera he handed over some drugs straight
they are being filmed. away. I don’t think he would have done this had I not
Generally camera is useful – excellent way to record been wearing the camera.
evidence for use in interviews.
Great evidentially and back office facility very good.

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 109

Other taking details – sometimes this is forgotten on hand-ons,
Very useful – especially during those incidents involving resulting in witnesses being missed or failure in
a large number of people. Excellent evidence for court. recordings. You can’t beat writing it down.
We could use the footage when a store detective gives an Although concept is good the tools are not. Have had
account of theft/shoplifting and if PND is issued and occasions when unit records when don’t want it to and
no statement is taken from them, but if PND not paid not when you do! Headband presses on the temples and
we could use this as their evidence or at least use it as gives you a bad headache – it has to be on tight or it falls
their notes made at the time. off.
Camera should have a ratchet system which needs to be
Back office
clicked to move camera as moves up too easily. A proper
Back office facility makes it a lot easier so less time spent
switch to record as current button very sensitive and
by officers downloading footage so able to spend more
records in error too often.
time on patrol.
Can be frustrating to use but once teething problems, i.e.
Head camera back office is invaluable and reduces the
loss of Airwave and unit switching itself off, are resolved
likelihood that officers will incur overtime downloading
I think more officers will use them.
footage. If back office ceased to exist I can see officers
not using the equipment. Switched camera on at incident, made sure red light came
on only to find it has not recorded anything later. It has
NEGATIVE COMMENTS interfered with my Airwave set where it appeared the
Comfort communications room could hear me but I could not
Camera too easy to tilt, headband uncomfortable and hear or receive what they were saying. A little awkward to
difficult to wear under helmet – OK if attached to find where to put it – another bit of kit to carry. And it
helmet but requires disconnecting when remove helmet. broke when I fell and landed on it!

Difficult to wear with hat and difficult to run with Process

camera on. Sometimes record the sky as camera moves CPS still request statements on top of video evidence,
too easily and not aware camera pointing up. duplicating workload. Comfort, switches off, and be
Head camera should be worn on officer’s vest. police officer proof and simple to use.

If only it were more user friendly and not so heavy/ A more clear definition of what form is required for
bulky to wear/carry. relevant action, e.g. evidential footage/footage taken but
nothing of value/no footage taken, and what goes on
Uncomfortable and impractical for use in violent crime, each form and where.
unit switches off so officers spend more time checking
that than on their colleagues, and unit not user friendly. Other
Possible use against officer. Not an easy process to
Technology acquire, use and return, and possible headaches.
Recording unreliable, camera attachment to headband
loose, headband can become uncomfortable. Needs a Would not use the head camera if the back office were to
more ‘positive’ recording switch. Main pack quite bulky – be removed.
we carry a lot of kit as it is. Some people rely on it for

110 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Annex 2: Complaints against
the police

COMPLAINTS AGAINST PLYMOUTH STAFF:

OCTOBER 2006 TO MARCH 2007 COMPARED
WITH OCTOBER 2005 TO MARCH 2006

October 2005 to March 2006 October 2006 to March 2007

Total No. of Total No. of
complaints incidents complaints incidents
South 14 8 South 13 8

Central 14 6 Central 11 8
South and Central 28 14 South and Central 24 16
Reduction on 2005/06 –4.3% 14.3%
Percentage of BCU 58.3% 51.9% Percentage of BCU 52.6% 64.0%
complaints complaints
Total BCU complaints 48 27 Total BCU complaints 46 25
Reduction on 2005/06 –4.2% –7.4%

South and Central Sector staff only South and Central Sector staff only
Type of complaint Total Type of complaint Total
complaints complaints
Other assault 7 Other assault 5
Discriminatory behaviour 1 Discriminatory behaviour 0
Irregularity in evidence/perjury 2 Irregularity in evidence/perjury 0
Corrupt practice 2 Corrupt practice 0
Mishandling of property 7 Mishandling of property 0
Other neglect or failure in duty 7 Other neglect or failure in duty 3
Incivility, impoliteness and intolerance 1 Incivility, impoliteness and intolerance 10
Other irregularity in procedure 0 Other irregularity in procedure 1
Oppressive conduct or harassment 0 Oppressive conduct or harassment 2
Unlawful/unnecessary arrest or 0 Unlawful/unnecessary arrest or 1
detention detention
Lack of fairness and impartiality 0 Lack of fairness and impartiality 2
Other 1 Other 0
Total 28 Total 24

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 111

 Outcome Total Outcome Total
complaints complaints
Complaint process not completed 0 Complaint process not completed 11
Dispensation 0 Dispensation 5
Substantiated 0 Substantiated 0
Withdrawn 6 Withdrawn 0
Local resolution 20 Local resolution 7
Unsubstantiated 1 Unsubstantiated 1
Waiver 1 Waiver 0
Total 28 Total 24

The wide variance of figures shows how difficult it is to

obtain any sensible analysis from the data.

112 Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices

Annex 3: Victim survey

1. CRIME NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. NAME (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. AGE 18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 56–65 66–75 76–85 OTHER . . . . . . . . . . .

4. GENDER MALE/FEMALE

5. ETHNICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART OF THE PROJECT’S OBJECTIVE WAS FOR THE HEAD CAMERA TO BE VISIBLE

6. Were you aware that the head camera was being used?

YES/NO

If ‘NO’, is there any reason why you were not aware? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...............................................................................................

7. Do you feel that the use of the head camera was beneficial at the time of the incident?

YES/NO

8. Do you think that the head camera should be used by all police officers?

YES/NO

9. Do you feel safer as a result of police officers wearing head cameras?

YES/NO

10. Any other comments please?

...............................................................................................

Guidance for the Police Use of Body-Worn Video Devices 113

Produced by COI on behalf of the Home Office. July 2007. Ref: 281579. CSOR.
ISBN: 978-1-84726-344-5