Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Today I got the CCTV from the CPS.
To start with Dibble quite rightly pointed out I didn't really know if the Police collecting all the footage. At the time I assumed they had not. If the CPS have given me all the footage - then now I know they have not. All they have given me is the same footage I posted before.
However... It's a longer unedited version. I realise now not only was the footage pixelated but they had also cropped out anything that they didn't want you seeing. And lowered the quality.
What is does show explicitly:
- The 'independent witness' was actually an employee having a cheeky cigerette. And he ran inside before anything happened. He also came back out after it happened. He has explicitly and provably lied. There is absolutely no way he could have seen what he says he did.
- The footage is of such higher quality that through a window you can see me paying and walking out. In another clip you can see me meeting with my partner after walking straight from the tils. So it shows I did leave how I said.
- The footage shows clearly not only me stopping. But the guard interacting with me. Again showing he was wrong when he said I ignored him.
- It also shows (not really clearly but obviously) him hitting me, kicking me, and aggressively grabbing hold of my partner. He claims he never laid a finger on anyone.
I am looking forward to my trial. After seeing what I've seen today I have decided I will be launching civil action once this is over. I am not sure if I should post the footage as it does show everyone's faces. I shall have a think about it.
To start with Dibble quite rightly pointed out I didn't really know if the Police collecting all the footage. At the time I assumed they had not. If the CPS have given me all the footage - then now I know they have not. All they have given me is the same footage I posted before.
However... It's a longer unedited version. I realise now not only was the footage pixelated but they had also cropped out anything that they didn't want you seeing. And lowered the quality.
What is does show explicitly:
- The 'independent witness' was actually an employee having a cheeky cigerette. And he ran inside before anything happened. He also came back out after it happened. He has explicitly and provably lied. There is absolutely no way he could have seen what he says he did.
- The footage is of such higher quality that through a window you can see me paying and walking out. In another clip you can see me meeting with my partner after walking straight from the tils. So it shows I did leave how I said.
- The footage shows clearly not only me stopping. But the guard interacting with me. Again showing he was wrong when he said I ignored him.
- It also shows (not really clearly but obviously) him hitting me, kicking me, and aggressively grabbing hold of my partner. He claims he never laid a finger on anyone.
I am looking forward to my trial. After seeing what I've seen today I have decided I will be launching civil action once this is over. I am not sure if I should post the footage as it does show everyone's faces. I shall have a think about it.
Petrus1983 said:
Do you think there’s enough at this stage for your solicitor to approach the CPS to drop the case? (If that’s even possible).
Perhaps. But I wouldn't really want that.
I have severe reservations if the 'victim' and his 'witness' will turn up. But if they do I would rather see them squirm a bit and explain their lies than let it all just fade away. I'm invested enough now to want to see this through.
kestral said:
milkround said:
Today I got the CCTV from the CPS.
To start with Dibble quite rightly pointed out I didn't really know if the Police collecting all the footage. At the time I assumed they had not. If the CPS have given me all the footage - then now I know they have not. All they have given me is the same footage I posted before.
However... It's a longer unedited version. I realise now not only was the footage pixelated but they had also cropped out anything that they didn't want you seeing. And lowered the quality.
What is does show explicitly:
- The 'independent witness' was actually an employee having a cheeky cigerette. And he ran inside before anything happened. He also came back out after it happened. He has explicitly and provably lied. There is absolutely no way he could have seen what he says he did.
- The footage is of such higher quality that through a window you can see me paying and walking out. In another clip you can see me meeting with my partner after walking straight from the tils. So it shows I did leave how I said.
- The footage shows clearly not only me stopping. But the guard interacting with me. Again showing he was wrong when he said I ignored him.
- It also shows (not really clearly but obviously) him hitting me, kicking me, and aggressively grabbing hold of my partner. He claims he never laid a finger on anyone.
I am looking forward to my trial. After seeing what I've seen today I have decided I will be launching civil action once this is over. I am not sure if I should post the footage as it does show everyone's faces. I shall have a think about it.
Did the CPS send the footage from the CCTV direct to you or via your solicitor?To start with Dibble quite rightly pointed out I didn't really know if the Police collecting all the footage. At the time I assumed they had not. If the CPS have given me all the footage - then now I know they have not. All they have given me is the same footage I posted before.
However... It's a longer unedited version. I realise now not only was the footage pixelated but they had also cropped out anything that they didn't want you seeing. And lowered the quality.
What is does show explicitly:
- The 'independent witness' was actually an employee having a cheeky cigerette. And he ran inside before anything happened. He also came back out after it happened. He has explicitly and provably lied. There is absolutely no way he could have seen what he says he did.
- The footage is of such higher quality that through a window you can see me paying and walking out. In another clip you can see me meeting with my partner after walking straight from the tils. So it shows I did leave how I said.
- The footage shows clearly not only me stopping. But the guard interacting with me. Again showing he was wrong when he said I ignored him.
- It also shows (not really clearly but obviously) him hitting me, kicking me, and aggressively grabbing hold of my partner. He claims he never laid a finger on anyone.
I am looking forward to my trial. After seeing what I've seen today I have decided I will be launching civil action once this is over. I am not sure if I should post the footage as it does show everyone's faces. I shall have a think about it.
Red 4 said:
Milkround - iirc you were shown some CCTV footage when you were interviewed.
Is the CCTV evidence disclosed yesterday massively different to that ?
If the latest footage casts doubt on the SG's and witness' statements I'm wondering why things have progressed this far ?
Dibble made some comments earlier about how it is sometimes difficult to obtain CCTV footage (and he's right) but the police did seem keen to charge/ report you for summons.
My opinion - based on what you've said - is that this entire investigation has been shoddy.
What's the point charging/ reporting someone without knowing/ obtaining all the evidence first in a case like this - especially if that evidence could blow the case out of the water ?
I think the police jumped the gun here.
I could be wrong but it hardly seems like an impartial, evenhanded investigation to me.
In the interview it was a shorter version that missed out anything that could help me. Plus at the time I wasnt able to watch it at my own pace and put together what I was seeing. Is the CCTV evidence disclosed yesterday massively different to that ?
If the latest footage casts doubt on the SG's and witness' statements I'm wondering why things have progressed this far ?
Dibble made some comments earlier about how it is sometimes difficult to obtain CCTV footage (and he's right) but the police did seem keen to charge/ report you for summons.
My opinion - based on what you've said - is that this entire investigation has been shoddy.
What's the point charging/ reporting someone without knowing/ obtaining all the evidence first in a case like this - especially if that evidence could blow the case out of the water ?
I think the police jumped the gun here.
I could be wrong but it hardly seems like an impartial, evenhanded investigation to me.
I cant say why it's gone so far. I have my own hypothesis. The police never contacted me until the CEOs office of Tesco had chased up the manager. For whatever reason they tried to get me to say sorry and make it go away. It would be hard for me to complain if I had written a letter saying I'd been a naughty boy. Remember the officer repeatedly demanded I did that.
I've decided to not post all the footage on here right now. But at some point I'd be willing to send certain people a private link to the cctv and the statements. I personally couldn't believe what I was seeing when I saw it. It literally shows it would be physically impossible for the witness to see what he says. And it explicitly shows the sg either has such poor mental capacity that he couldn't he trusted to tie his own shoelaces or he is lying through his teeth.
I said from one day I wasnt happy with the police. I'm not anti police. But this was all very dodgy. How they didn't get the cctv they admitted existed. And how they didn't want to speak to my partner until I'd been charged. Even how they never wanted to see my receipt. For whatever reason minds were made up and nothing was going to change them.
Given we have just for the cctv after many letters and asking the court for a hearing to compel them (note the cps still have not given me the phone recordings of initial complaints or a copy of my own interview) - I'm not sure if the cps have even really looked at it yet.
Tango13 said:
I've been following this thread from the start and my personal opinion??
The original officer was either too lazy or too busy to investigate fully and hoped the O/P would just take some rapped knuckles and f
k off.
O/P rightly complained about her so she was taken off the case, now I wouldn't be in the slightest bit supprised if the officer taking over the case either knew the original officer or knew about the complaint.
When the new officer investigated fully it became obvious there wasn't a case to answer which would not reflect well on the original officer.
Now anyone that has had any dealings with the police will tell you they are both institutionally and pathologically incapable of admitting when they've made a mistake so they went double or quits and dragged the O/P into court hoping he'd go guilty early.
The O/P went 'not guilty' and the police went 'oh st'
And I'd say that isn't a million miles from the truth. I'd just throw in that I think they were covering for the SG. Simply because they made zero effort to question his conduct or look at anything critically. The original officer was either too lazy or too busy to investigate fully and hoped the O/P would just take some rapped knuckles and f
k off.O/P rightly complained about her so she was taken off the case, now I wouldn't be in the slightest bit supprised if the officer taking over the case either knew the original officer or knew about the complaint.
When the new officer investigated fully it became obvious there wasn't a case to answer which would not reflect well on the original officer.
Now anyone that has had any dealings with the police will tell you they are both institutionally and pathologically incapable of admitting when they've made a mistake so they went double or quits and dragged the O/P into court hoping he'd go guilty early.
The O/P went 'not guilty' and the police went 'oh s
t'I don't think the police went 'oh s
t'. I reckon they don't really care. To balance this out. When I complained an Inspector did end up contacting me. He reckoned the original officer did nothing wrong really. But gave her words of advice. He said he'd given her the opportunity to talk to me but she declined. Which is fair enough. But what I really wanted was for someone to have a look at it all with objective eyes.
The Police are not all bad imo. If i was being burgled and called 999 they would come and help me. And they are more fair than most I've experienced in the world. But from the first phone call the police had decided. It had nothing to do with evidence. I'll never know or prove why they did that. But I have my own opinions.
It's a shame. I never wanted anyone sacked or to go to court. I wanted an apology. Instead, I got dragged through the courts.
Lemming Train said:
Lemming Train said:
Milkround:
Who doctored the footage in an attempt to stitch you up? Was it edited by Tesco or the police ?
Bump.Who doctored the footage in an attempt to stitch you up? Was it edited by Tesco or the police ?
In the interview? - No idea. It wasn't doctored as much as cut and pasted. I reckon the store gave them the footage like that. I believe this becuase the start and end times are exactly the same as my SAR footage from memory.
The SAR footage must have been Tesco. No one else was involved. They would side step this with them protecting the data protection of others.
Both the Police and the Supermarket chose not to give me the footage inside. And I know why. It would show me being clam and normal and facing aggression. I can't prove it. But Dibble a serving officer (along with other both serving and ex officers) have said they would collect the footage. Here two officers chose not to. Even after one admitted in an interview it would exist and would remove uncertainty.
Greendubber said:
Tango13 said:
I've been following this thread from the start and my personal opinion??
The original officer was either too lazy or too busy to investigate fully and hoped the O/P would just take some rapped knuckles and fk off.
O/P rightly complained about her so she was taken off the case, now I wouldn't be in the slightest bit supprised if the officer taking over the case either knew the original officer or knew about the complaint.
When the new officer investigated fully it became obvious there wasn't a case to answer which would not reflect well on the original officer.
Now anyone that has had any dealings with the police will tell you they are both institutionally and pathologically incapable of admitting when they've made a mistake so they went double or quits and dragged the O/P into court hoping he'd go guilty early.
The O/P went 'not guilty' and the police went 'oh st'
I've never met an officer that would actually want to inherit a fairly sThe original officer was either too lazy or too busy to investigate fully and hoped the O/P would just take some rapped knuckles and f
k off.O/P rightly complained about her so she was taken off the case, now I wouldn't be in the slightest bit supprised if the officer taking over the case either knew the original officer or knew about the complaint.
When the new officer investigated fully it became obvious there wasn't a case to answer which would not reflect well on the original officer.
Now anyone that has had any dealings with the police will tell you they are both institutionally and pathologically incapable of admitting when they've made a mistake so they went double or quits and dragged the O/P into court hoping he'd go guilty early.
The O/P went 'not guilty' and the police went 'oh s
t't sounding job and end up with all the hours file upgrades and further protracted enquires bring rather than just be upfront with the OP.If anything more effort would be put into how to immediately file it.
If after that you determine you would report to summons/charge that's fine. But if that's a case I'd donate £500 each to a Police charity of your choice. I am that confident that this has been handled unfairly.
kestral said:
carinaman said:
It's only public money they're wasting. No harm done.
And Milkrounds money.Since that night - I have suffered an awful lot of stress. I was banned from ever working for that company again due to an accident, it just so happens that many other drivers before and since had more serious singular accidents and were not banned. I was further banned from working for that agency - which is the biggest driving agency in the UK. So in effect, I am banned from most large companies. The official reason given was insurance reasons. But an agency rep and friend from another site told me it was due to the supermarket not being happy and complaining about both the incident and my continued posting about it. So in effect I was blacklisted from a large amount of work.
Due to this I missed out on an opportunity to leave a job I really hate and start something new. Something I was really excited about. I had to tell them about the pending trial as I'd have to travel to America a fair amount. So I lost out there. They did say after it's all over come back and they will see. But I have been forced to continue doing something I despise.
Me and my partner moved into a new home. A lovely apartment. For week she had been planning and buying bits. On the very day we moved in she got a huge amount of phone calls from the police demanding she come and give a statement now. Demanding her address so they could come and get a statement. This was after I had been charged (I found out on that day as well from the solicitor). She was in tears after being harassed. It ruined what should have been a nice day. Before this we had both been travelling in SE Asia, I shouldn't have been back when this happened. But she was offered a good job. We had talked about our own home and plans - and it was stolen from us both.
I have lost out in many ways. Financially is just one of them. And I can't get it back. I am excited for this all to be over. In fact I am planning on saving for a trip to Central America. Financially without all this I'd be able to do that now. I am talking about a few months backpacking here. That has been stolen from me temporarily. There is still the chance I could be convicted. Theoretically I could still go to prison.
And... even after all this is over. If the PC sees that it would be impossible for his witness to be telling the truth, and it's clear the 'victim' lied - what do you reckon the chance he would apologize and shake my hand? Very slim I think. I keep remembering back to that phone call when the lady PC said 'you need to get me an independent witness then' which seemed absurd at the time. But it's what the other side did. Make up a story and invented a witness. I can't believe the police didn't know that - it is blatantly obvious. They just didn't care.
The Mad Monk said:
milkround said:
phone calls from the police demanding she come and give a statement now. Demanding her address so they could come and get a statement.
Why didn't she give them a statement?Why didn't she give the police her address?
They don't have the right to say we don't want to listen to you, then demand everything to stop so they can tick a box after they have made their decision.
Trial was actually meant to be today. Rocked up to court this morning. Spoke to solicitor. Was told that we were third on list. At 12.30 they said mine was going to be adjourned until mid December now as they are over running.
Cps definitely are not dropping it. Solicitor reckons the actual witness might be someone other than you can see in the cctv. Why they didn't take a statement from the guy who is in the footage smoking who sees the initial interaction is confusing to me.
If witness is not in footage it's hard to see how he could see anything. It was dark and hed be neatly 40m away. Oh well.
So I'll have nothing to add until december really. Only other thing to note is that with cps CCTV there is a small section which is cut our. It stops for about 15 seconds and then starts again. Might be nothing in that but it's odd.
Cps definitely are not dropping it. Solicitor reckons the actual witness might be someone other than you can see in the cctv. Why they didn't take a statement from the guy who is in the footage smoking who sees the initial interaction is confusing to me.
If witness is not in footage it's hard to see how he could see anything. It was dark and hed be neatly 40m away. Oh well.
So I'll have nothing to add until december really. Only other thing to note is that with cps CCTV there is a small section which is cut our. It stops for about 15 seconds and then starts again. Might be nothing in that but it's odd.
Li liga you are probably right. There might be a stronger case than I think. I'm not legally trained etc. We shall have to see. We have until december now. I suppose the real question is will I spend xmas in prison?
Joking aside I'm really pretty gutted. Was hoping this would all be over. Solicitor says it may even happen again next time. Years in this purgatory.
Joking aside I'm really pretty gutted. Was hoping this would all be over. Solicitor says it may even happen again next time. Years in this purgatory.
steveo3002 said:
am i right in thinking this will either go yay or nay for the o.p...its not a scenario where the judge can say hang on the guard is in the wrong and get him prosecuted ?
No it's yay or nay. It will be three magistrates who rock up and make a decision how they feel on the day. I'm sure they can make instructions to the Police or the CPS but it's never going to happen. My Sol's job isn't to prove anyone is guilty but to prove I'm not guilty within unreasonable chance. Here is an interesting stat (I'm away and a bit drunk do apologize if I get the numbers wrong) - https://www.cps.gov.uk/key-measures
Mags - 77% plead guilty.
84% determined guilty.
Which means 23 out of a 100 plead not guilty. And from that only 7 out of 100 of the population are convicted after trial.
So on average the CPS (with the whole power of the state) - manage to win only 30% of trials in magistrates.
Now some of them will be given up by the cps as no hopers. But it shows that 70% of people who chose to fight the system are legally not guilty. Could be due to witnesses not turning up etc - but it's a shocking statistic. Conversely it will include folk who please NG to see is witnesses turn up or not. Basically - if you please NG the CPS will lose 70% of the time statistically. It's a joke. No wonder they hide these stats and don't publicize them directly.
Crown Court - is on paper better. 81% conviction rate. But only 40% of folks plead guilty.
But that means 19 people are found innocent but 60 people plead not guilty. Which actually means if you plead NG in the magistates you are more likely to be found NG than in the Crown Court. This is fantastic for me - as it means if I lose I get a second chance with decent odds again.
If you get into the criminal court system forget about justice, the truth or fairness. It's a game designed to wear down those in it. Be them innocent, guilty or in-between. The CPS are a bit like PPI/Car accident lawyers - technically qualified, but just jumping through the hoops to get paid. Some will say they are understaffed etc - which is fine, but if I only managed to do 30% of my deliveries and failed 70% of the time I'd probably think I was not cut out for the job.
walm said:
I think I agree with all of 1-3 but not 4.
Someone more legally qualified in the thread posted earlier about how you can use the answers to questions to build a "case" as it were, or as here, give you grounds for reasonable belief of nicking stuff going on.
You/SG/Police can ask whatever they like - don't we all agree that?
Also no one has to answer to SGs (and usually police IIRC).
BUT WHAT IF SOMEONE DOES ANSWER!!!?
"Yeah mate, I just nicked a bunch of cheap bins, they're down my pants."
AT THAT POINT SURELY A SG CAN STOP YOU??????
Tesco might not want the SG just asking fishing questions all day because that will put customers off.
But he is perfectly entitled to by law.
And if someone admits freely they just nicked something, the SG can do something about it!!!!
Here, what was admitted (I don't have a receipt) helped BUILD THE EVIDENCE of a reasonable belief the OP was nicking stuff.
I've been away and still am so shall be brief. Someone more legally qualified in the thread posted earlier about how you can use the answers to questions to build a "case" as it were, or as here, give you grounds for reasonable belief of nicking stuff going on.
You/SG/Police can ask whatever they like - don't we all agree that?
Also no one has to answer to SGs (and usually police IIRC).
BUT WHAT IF SOMEONE DOES ANSWER!!!?
"Yeah mate, I just nicked a bunch of cheap bins, they're down my pants."
AT THAT POINT SURELY A SG CAN STOP YOU??????
Tesco might not want the SG just asking fishing questions all day because that will put customers off.
But he is perfectly entitled to by law.
And if someone admits freely they just nicked something, the SG can do something about it!!!!
Here, what was admitted (I don't have a receipt) helped BUILD THE EVIDENCE of a reasonable belief the OP was nicking stuff.
According to the sg I said nothing and just walked past him without uttering a word. Now the CCTV directly disproved this. But he isn't saying he formed his opinion because I said I didn't have one.
So how what he is claiming was never said helped him form such an opinion is a mystery to me.
Genuine question for any former or serving officers.
Is there any reason to cut chunks out of CCTV? If not is it considered acceptable practice? I can and will ask the solicitors but I am interested in a police view on this.
I have been reviewing the CCTV evidence and notice that for 12 seconds nothing moves. Then the time stamp jumps to 12 seconds later.
This is a bit critical to me. As it's the time when the SG grabbed hold of me and tried twisting my arm around my back. It can't be that the CCTV was not working... As in the interview I did I saw it and pointed it out to the officer. I specifically said what it showed and asked him what it looked like to him. He said he couldn't comment. But the copy the CPS have given my solicitors has this section missing.
I'm not interested in any conspiracy theories and I'm not insulting accusing anyone. I certainly don't think the Police chopped it up. I think it's more likely that the company gave over a copy with certain bits removed.
Is there any reason to cut chunks out of CCTV? If not is it considered acceptable practice? I can and will ask the solicitors but I am interested in a police view on this.
I have been reviewing the CCTV evidence and notice that for 12 seconds nothing moves. Then the time stamp jumps to 12 seconds later.
This is a bit critical to me. As it's the time when the SG grabbed hold of me and tried twisting my arm around my back. It can't be that the CCTV was not working... As in the interview I did I saw it and pointed it out to the officer. I specifically said what it showed and asked him what it looked like to him. He said he couldn't comment. But the copy the CPS have given my solicitors has this section missing.
I'm not interested in any conspiracy theories and I'm not insulting accusing anyone. I certainly don't think the Police chopped it up. I think it's more likely that the company gave over a copy with certain bits removed.
Thanks everyone.
I dont think for a second the police have edited it. Not for a single second actually.
But what is strange is that the footage which was highly edited and sent to me by the supermarket had exactly the same bit cut our. And now this copy has it missing. But the police copy didn't have it missing.
I shall ask the solicitors to chase it up. The video plays as normal and then freezes for 12 seconds (still playing but like a photo for that time), and then starts again.
I have asked a neighbour of mine who is a professional freelance video editor (does documentaries etc) and he says hes never known that to happen. If a camera stopped working it wouldn't record a still image. And he showed me how you can simply make it look like that. He says he is no expert on cctv but that hes certain someone has played with it.
If the cps wont explain why its been messed with it looks like I'll have to stump up for a forensic cctv expert.
I dont think for a second the police have edited it. Not for a single second actually.
But what is strange is that the footage which was highly edited and sent to me by the supermarket had exactly the same bit cut our. And now this copy has it missing. But the police copy didn't have it missing.
I shall ask the solicitors to chase it up. The video plays as normal and then freezes for 12 seconds (still playing but like a photo for that time), and then starts again.
I have asked a neighbour of mine who is a professional freelance video editor (does documentaries etc) and he says hes never known that to happen. If a camera stopped working it wouldn't record a still image. And he showed me how you can simply make it look like that. He says he is no expert on cctv but that hes certain someone has played with it.
If the cps wont explain why its been messed with it looks like I'll have to stump up for a forensic cctv expert.
MB140 said:
That’s exactly what milkround is saying. The 12 second missing part of the recording is pivotal it’s the bit where the security guard tried twisting his arm round his back and pushed him to the floor. I’m guessing the video starts again just as milkround pushes the security away in self defence after getting back up (or attacked the security guard depending who you believe (personally I believe milkround)
Bingo. Edited by MB140 on Sunday 15th September 19:25
The footage still looks like it's me moving back and him coming towards me - but the bit where it's explicitly clear he gets hands on is gone.
Now the footage does help me. It collaberates everything else I said. It shows me stopping. It shows me walking from the direction is the payment area. It shows me backing away rather than being aggressive. But it doesn't show him thrown me around.
It's a bit dark etc. But the mate who does documentaries showed me how you can change the saturation and brightness. And suddenly things come a lot more clear. And it shows everything stop and then start again.
Dibble said:
Also, are you 100% sure you’re correctly remembering what you actually saw on the CCTV? Is it possible you’re mistaken now/were mistaken then? I’m not trying to belittle you in any way, it’s just that human memory isn’t always accurate and you might have seen what you “wanted” to see. Because you “know” the security guard has done “x”, are you interpreting a few flickering, indistinct pixels and vague memory in a high stress situation into something more “concrete”?
Yes Dibble I am. I remember as I explicitly pointed it out. And I asked the officer. And the solicitor asked him to play it again. He then commented he wasn't able to comment on it I think the comment was 'it's not my place to comment on that'.
Now I could check this but... the cps didn't give us a copy of the recording of my interview in disclosure. It was asked for - but they never sent it. I know that's not the police's fault etc - but it feels like you are having a fight with your hands ties behind your back and someone has put a blind on you.
Same goes for the recordings of the phone calls. The CPS didn't give them over either. The only video/audio disclosure they gave was the cctv with bits missing.
kestral said:
Ask yourself are you getting too embrioled in all this now. "forensic cctv expert", "I will go to crown court if necessary" Is it really that seriouse that you are going to waste all this money. We know what can happen. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-wor...
That's a good point. Edited by kestral on Sunday 15th September 17:53
But... https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits
"In terms of proving the authenticity of the video recording, the Prosecution must be able to show that the video film produced in evidence is the original video recording or an authentic copy of the original and show that it has not been tampered with. In order to do so statements must be available which produce the video evidence as an exhibit and which cover its continuity and security, unless it is agreed by the Defence that this is not an issue."
"In respect of evidence obtained from automatic video recording systems e.g. shop security video systems a statement should be obtained from the person responsible for operating the video equipment. The statement should include a description of the system used and explain how it works. "
So... the business in question should have to confirm that it's not been messed around with. IF (and it is an IF In respect of evidence obtained from automatic video recording systems e.g. shop security video systems a statement should be obtained from the person responsible for operating the video equipment. The statement should include a description of the system used and explain how it works."
So in effect - I'm trying to force the CPS to both say they think the CCTV is legit and also force the company in question to write in the form of a statement that it's not been played with. IF (and it's an IF) an expert says that is not the case then I'm sure we can all work out what the repercusions for both a criminal and any civil action would or could be.
What's more:
"If the original film is not available or is not in a playable format then the prosecution must establish that the copy produced is an authentic copy of the original recording and if the original is not available that the police do not have possession of it."
So they must establish that the CCTV is legit. Which is why the recording of my interview is rather important. How can I question what is not there? How can I question what no one can see? I think it's a legitimate battle in my own personal case.
hutchst said:
Has the SG actually denied taking hold of milkround's arm?
Yes. He explicitly states he never laid a finger on my or my partner.The witness says he 'raised his leg towards the male' (which I think is kicking whilst trying not to say kicking). But he says he never physically touched me at all.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff