There has been significant public discussion recently regarding the importance and utility of body-worn cameras. The use of this technology can undoubtedly assist with investigations as video recordings will capture arrests, searches, interviews, and other police interactions which can assist the court or any other authority with a contemporaneous account of the events. However, the existence of video recordings does not automatically render it admissible in court. Like all other types of evidence, footage from body worn cameras must satisfy legal requirements before it can be admitted by a court as part of the evidence.

Admissibility of evidence must satisfy the requirements of:

1) relevance

2) reliability

3) authenticity

The footage must be relevant to a fact in issue. Footage from body cameras may capture the commission of an offence, conduct of the parties, circumstances of an arrest, statements made by the parties that are of probative value. However, if the footage has no connection to the matter before the court it is highly unlikely that it will be admitted.

Reliability and authenticity are intricately connected as authenticity of the evidence will determine its reliability. The party seeking to rely on the video footage must satisfy the court that the video recording is what it purports to be. This must be done through a witness who can speak to the authenticity of the footage presented and also provide evidence regarding the proper working condition of the device used to record the footage.

The Court will also require evidence concerning the storage and handling of the recording after it was created to be satisfied that the footage has not been altered, edited, or otherwise compromised before it is being presented in court.

Given the vulnerable nature of digital evidence, it may be susceptible to tampering if proper procedures are not followed. There must be sufficient documentation of chain of custody and clear records of who accessed the footage, by whom it was downloaded, and when and where it was stored to satisfy the court of the footage’s integrity and reliability.

In Jamaica we have often hear the adage, “Hearseh can’t go court.” This is true as hearsay is generally inadmissible in court unless the statements fall under a legal exception. There may be statements captured by body-worn cameras which offend the rule against hearsay. The court would therefore have to consider the admissibility of these statements and if they are inadmissible they would be excluded from the evidence.

However, it may also be possible to edit the footage, by removing the hearsay statements, but this editing must be done in a manner which ensures that the reliability of the rest of the footage is maintained.

Footage from body-worn cameras can potentially be of significant benefit to parties in criminal or civil trials. Recordings may corroborate police or accused testimony, contradict witness’s accounts, or reveal investigative shortcomings that would otherwise remain undisclosed. It may also identify issues regarding identification, use of force, or procedural fairness. However, if there are inadequacies in the system the relevance, reliability, and authenticity of the footage would not be preserved. This would have a detrimental effect on the value of body-worn camera footage in the administration of justice.

Footage from body-worn cameras can potentially enhance transparency and public confidence in the justice system and law enforcement. However, its admissibility ultimately depends on fundamental principles of law such as relevance, authenticity, reliability and fairness.

Judi-Ann Edwards is an attorney-at-law and managing partner of JK Edwards Law. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or jkedwardslaw@gmail.com.