UK Police state helmet cam footage is not admissable nor can be used as evidence in court

Well I am I Birmingham and these people aren't that bright. I think the potholes are caused by there knuckles hitting the floor

If a truck or bus has it fitted the Police can attend the vehicles base and it can be downloaded straight from the hard drive onto a usb device or disc and it becomes an exhibit as mentioned. It also shows continuity between the hard drive and coming into Police hands so there are no grey areas.

The downloaded info placed onto a usb and handed over to the Police by a member of the public may never be questioned but sometimes it is and thats when it can be thrown out as evidence.
I cant comment on other forces but where i work we have the facility so that the images caught on a head cam etc can be burnt directly onto a disc to be used as an exhibit.

I think it's a quote out of context. The missing part is the word "automatically". Police road cameras and CCTV are designed to provide admissable evidence. Time date, location, speed, and the angles are known. On helmet cams it isn't. So It's only useful for some evidential purposes.

So a simple helmet camera piece of footage showing a crime in plain view with no complications (someone running down a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. An oncoming vehicle on the wrong side of the road or a motorist clearly using a mobile phone such that you see the vehicle, face and number plate as well as the phone in hand and at the ear) would definitely be admissable.

However a front facing camera in most cases couldn't be used as evidence of a close pass because the angle distorts the distances, enough anyway for a lawyer to dispute its accuracy.

Evidence is evidence. But if it isn't really evidence that stands up in court it isn't evidence. Some helmet cam footage of some things is evidence and some footage of other things isn't worth a bean.

Hope that helps.

So they have to bring the whole cam to the police station!? So how does this work with trucks and buses that have there cams built in.

From my experience, I just took a usb device that I copied the footage on to the police station. They copied the file and i got my usb back. The video was used in court and the case was successful.

The OP statement is incorrect. As Stumps has pointed out. Why does this myth resurface so often?

Officers fobbing people off with this, possibly refusing to take a complaint at the same time?

Source? Sounds like a quote has been taken out of context.

We had a personal safety presentation at work recently from the local force. I asked specifically and they confirmed that they would be (and have been) in a position to charge based on helmetcam footage.

I think the confusion here is that when someone captures an incident on a helmet cam or similar they download it and hand it over to the Police. This leaves it open to the defence saying it has been altered / edited from the original.

If you hand over the helmet cam or body cam etc to the Police they can get it downloaded straight from the machine and it becomes an exhibit.

Since when!?

Who told you this?

There's been successful prosecutions based primarily on helmet cam footage.

Sidi 700c - can you please show us where you got this piece of information from ?

We use cctv, helmet cam, body cam and in car cctv all the time.

Except when idiots post their high speed antics from their supercars or sports bike. , then the police will quite happily use it. Whether it's just used to strong arm the offender into a confession or directly used as evidence it would need to be checked out.

If you and the police have the only copies of the video it should be.

As soon as it is in the public domain, like youtube, it becomes pretty useless to the police