Overt filming/photography

08/08
11 June 2008
MPA briefing paper

Author: A/Chief Inspector Alan Thompson, Policy and Performance, Operation Emerald. MPS

This briefing paper has been prepared to inform members and staff. It is not a committee report and no decisions are required.

Background

This briefing note is prepared to set out the MPS policy for overt filming following on from a discussion at the MPA Full Authority meeting held on 29 May 2008.

Overt filming does not fall under the Regulation Investigative Powers Act 2000 provisions, rather it is governed by an MPS Policy and set of Standard Operating Procedures. This policy was published in July 2005 and is currently under review by the Territorial Policing Policy Unit.

Overt filming is a tactic used to combat crime and gather intelligence and evidence relating to street crime, anti-social behaviour and public order. Cameras should be deployed overtly with the staff operating them clearly identifiable as police officers or police staff. The intention of overt filming is to provide reassurance and to reduce the fear of crime as well as to assist in its prevention and detection.

Although the normal authorisation level for overt filming on a Borough is that of Superintendent, an urgent authority can be granted by an officer in the rank of Inspector or above for a maximum period of 72 hours. If officers come across an incident, they may commence filming immediately but must contact an Inspector or above as soon as is practicable for retrospective authorisation to be granted. Non-Borough based, pre-planned operations involving overt filming will require the authorisation of the Gold or Silver for that operation.

Whether the operation is pre planned or not the intention is always to emphasise the overt nature of this filming. This will ensure that the public are aware and in many cases it will be obvious that their image has been captured. In the case of spontaneous filming, or a moving scenario it would not be practical for the officers to engage with every individual captured on film. However if approached by a member of the public they must inform them of the reason for filming and their rights detailed below. In the case of pre planned operations leaflets are distributed which cover these points. Where body worn video is used in a specific incident, those officers will also have leaflets to give to the individuals filmed.

Each Borough should have a system in place, ideally within the Borough Intelligence Unit, to keep control of the stored tapes. All details should be recorded to ensure that images can be retrieved, monitored, audited, and reviewed for the weeding process. All images should be reviewed 2 months after the date of capture. If the image does not relate to a pending or likely prosecution, a notice of compliance or likely civil action, or does not form useful intelligence, the images should be destroyed. However if more than one image is stored and one of those images is kept, that tape cannot be destroyed until all images can be weeded. Where the identity of the person whose image has been captured is known they can ask for the image to be destroyed. Provided the criteria are fulfilled for that destruction to occur, they must be given the opportunity to witness the image’s destruction or be given a certificate confirming the destruction within 5 days of the request being made.

Safer Neighbourhood Teams in particular use overt filming as part of their day-to-day problem solving processes for their Wards. The establishment of Local Ward Panels has provided an ideal opportunity to involve members of the local community in the consultation process around tactics to resolve their concerns. Overt filming may be used as part of the longer-term response to those issues by intelligence gathering or as part of a deterrent. The resource tasking process in each Borough ensures that the local authorising officer is satisfied that each of these deployments will be proportionate and does not contravene human rights legislation. It is primarily a preventative and intelligence tool, although has featured in prosecutions, particularly public order situations.

In July 2008 the MPS will commence a trial on two boroughs on the use of Body Worn Video (BWV) cameras. To assess the value of use of BWV to the MPS. Funding was made available through the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) to which the MPS successfully bid for funds to assist the pilot project. During the trial period between 200 and 300 officers on each borough will have access to the overt cameras and will use them to record incidents ranging from anti-social behaviour and disorderly behaviour to violent crime. The intention of this trial is to establish whether randomly recorded evidence supports the prosecution of offenders, the investigation of complaints and a reduction in the time spent by officers on paperwork and subsequent court attendance. Authority for the use of these cameras will be granted by the local OCU Commander, and day to day supervision of the trial will be managed by a project team. Local consultation by each of the Boroughs has already established public support for the trial, which has an awareness raising and publicity element built into it to maintain that public support.

Overt Filming has been the subject of a recent Judicial Review (22 May 2008) in a public order situation. The judge decided that no Human Rights had been infringed by the MPS’ use of overt filming and that the tactic of overt photography is truly valuable in public order policing and policing per se.

The MPS are held open to legal and public scrutiny on this matter and are held accountable for our actions.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback