Page 46 - Top Cover Issue 9

46 TOP COVER ISSUE 9

a range of physiological and psychological a need to brake but before being able benefit of hindsight will discourage an
responses which may determine their to press the brake pedal – the thinking appropriate response, in real time, to threats
perception of time, distance, auditory and time in the Highway Code braking thereby resulting in potentially increased
visual stimuli and the chronology of events. distances table. danger to those involved in these exceedingly
This may affect their ability immediately • A camera does not recreate the light difficult operations …
after the incident to recall what may be and visibility available to the officer at Whilst BWV may reduce the scope
important detail. the time . for lawyers to challenge officers’ evidence
This is exactly why a period of at • A camera only records in 2 D – it does as to the facts, it will enable challenge
least 48 hours should pass before the not record depth of field on differences between the officers’
officer is required to provide a detailed BWV will encourage assessment of stated perception and the reality caught
account. This is why officers are currently an officer’s decision with the benefit of on BWV. BWV will enable minute
permitted to confer on any issue, other hindsight. The law on self defence is set dissection of the crucial fractions of a
than their honestly held belief of why out in the case of R v PALMER (1971) second with the benefit of hindsight.
force was necessary. This is why officers AC 814: All of these consequences put the
should be permitted to view BWV before … a person defending themselves (or officer who has used force in an even
providing their detailed statement. others) cannot weigh to a nicety the exact more vulnerable position. The only way
Achieving best evidence will not measure of his defensive action. to properly recognise this vulnerability is
happen if officers are prohibited from The Queen on the application of to permit the officer to view BWV before
conferring, are separated from colleagues Ernest Bennett v HM Coroner for Inner they provide their detailed account.
before providing an account, or are South London [2006] EWHC 196 They should, of course, still clearly
prohibited from viewing BWV. Such (Admin) articulate in their detailed account, all the
restrictions are not appropriate for … if any officer reasonably decides he factors that resulted in their perception of
someone who is allegedly being treated must use lethal force, it will inevitably be the threat justifying their decision to use
as a witness. They are understandable if because it is absolutely necessary … There is force; - Intelligence received, experience,
someone is being treated as a suspect. no support for the submission that the court and the actual movements of the subject
But the consequences of imposing such has with hindsight to decide whether there that resulted in the officer perceiving a
restrictions on a witness are that they was in fact absolute necessity. threat that justified the use of force. They
will become naturally cautious about But does anyone really believe that should then deal with any differences
committing themselves to detail when officers will not be asked whether they between their perception and the reality
they know that their ability to recall really needed to use force and BWV will as shown on the BWV.
important facts will be affected. This be a tool in assessing that? For example: This does not prevent the IPCC
is especially the case when they know • the decision to shoot Derek conducting a thorough investigation.
there are likely to be differences between BENNETT believing him to be This does not prevent the investigation
their perception of events and the reality about to shoot a handgun which was complying with the Article 2
captured on the BWV. This will result discovered to be a cigarette lighter requirement. This does not prevent
in very short, guarded accounts being shortly afterwards; lawyers challenging the officers at an
provided until such time as they are • the decision to shoot Harry inquest. There will undoubtedly still
permitted to view the BWV. STANLEY believing him to be be differences between the officer’s
Juries at inquests will want to know about to shoot a shotgun which was perception, as set out in the initial
what explanation there is for differences discovered to be a table leg wrapped in account (made without reference to
between an officer’s perception and the polythene; BWV), and the detailed account made
reality captured on BWV. Lawyers will • the decision to shoot Jean Charles de after viewing BWV.
explore any differences or inconsistencies. Menezes believing him to have been There is a suspicion that politics is
If the officer has been prohibited from an identified suicide bomber who delaying the issuing of ACPO’s guidance.
viewing BWV until many months after was about to detonate a bomb on an There is a suspicion that the interests
the incident they will be poorly placed to underground train; of the firearms officer is seen as a poor
offer an explanation. • the decision to shoot Mark Duggan second to the perceived public interest.
BWV is not the panacea or resolution believing he had drawn and was about But, the only fair resolution of the issue,
of all evidential issues. to shoot a handgun when, according the balanced resolution of the issue,
• A camera does not follow your eyes or to the juries finding of fact, he was in the way to achieve best evidence is to
see as they see. the process of throwing it over a fence. permit officers to view BWV before the
• A camera does not record your history In E7 v The Azelle Rodney Inquiry provision of the detailed account. That is
and experience or your mental risk [2014] EWHC 452 (Admin) the High what the current position is in non DSI
assessment. Court said policing and that is what the position
• A camera does not allow for the … in our judgment there is considerable should be in DSI investigations! ■
reaction time – the distance covered force in the expressed concern that minute
by a car after a driver has recognised dissection of fractions of a second with the