CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Was talking to a policewoman.
She was suggesting that despite having a film of say a guy driving whilst on the phone, you would still need corroborating witness from the scene, I wonder if you could film them saying yes I saw it and my name is Joe Bloggs contactable at 999 Letsbe Ave. etc?
She was saying this is PF rules not the polis
That's why the polis are always seen driving roond in pairs when trying to catch phone users, with one of them filming. Seems very inefficient to me, to have 2 polis, when one would do.
But hey, rulz is rulz.
From http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Review/CarlowayReview/CorroborationCarloway:
7.2.15 ...
Another example is where there is CCTV involved. Provided that the recovered recording is proved by two witnesses to show the scene of a crime, two witnesses each identifying a person from the recording as the assailant will suffice, even if they are both police officers viewing the recording later. The CCTV recording is not the "source of evidence". The corroborating sources are the two witnesses speaking to the recording and the two (possibly the same) witnesses identifying the person shown.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/reckless-motorist-pictured-playing-ipad-1886150
Reckless motorist pictured playing racing game on iPad while driving at 65mph on motorway
As an additional the second corroborator can be the accused themselves saying, 'yes that's me on the video'.
In the case from SRD it's possible the van driver abnd the passenger who took the photo could speak to the photo being genuine. That's why photos and videos on their own can't be 'evidence' as they are both easily manipulated.
Tapped into my other half's PF past again on this and she mentioned prosecuting shoplifters. You'd have the CCTV recording, and the security from the store would speak to that. You then needed the police coming along and essentially saying, "we turned up and that person over there was being held by store security and it's the same person as in the recording we believe", or the accused simply saying "it's a fair cop" (in which case you don't really need the video recording, though the recording may make it easier to get them to admit their guilt).
There are cases thrown out, or marked not proceeding, where there is only the CCTV recording, and one security guy. So videos taken by Joe Public such as me are likely to carry even less weight.
Or... What Dave said. I don't know enough about the Carloway review, but I do know someone who worked on it, so I may dig a bit further.
...conserns over patient consent??
'Excuse me Mr, I know your in really bad chest pain, but before I start would you mind signing this disclaimer.... Fools!!
following on from Dave's link, Section 21 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/21 seems to say that a single witness can be sufficient for many Road Traffic Offences, such breaking some traffic regulation orders eg bus lanes, cycle lanes, banned turns, or contravening signs, eg stop signs or overtaking on double white lines? Whether the police, or fiscal would take action is another matter - there are far more offences committed than they can deal with
This may be completely incorrect but it was explained to me once upon a time that 'corroborating evidence' did not actually have to be 'sensory' evidence? For example if you only had one witness saying 'the blue car hit the lamppost' and the police found blue paint on the lamppost matching scratches on the car...that's corroboration? Or is that the wrong end of the stick...
I was on jury duty a couple of years ago and the corroboration rule really really helped with knowing what evidence to disregard and what to include. What was frustrating was how well the dodgy people giving evidence knew this and knew how to get their evidence discarded i.e. tell the court you are known to tell lies and immediately any evidence they have given previously has to be disregarded.
@Snowy, yep, that would be circumstantial, but circumstantial can (say by using forensics etc.) be compelling. With video evidence it's less easy to check under a microscope (I know, sounds daft if someone is on 'film' in HD and close up and completely recognisable,).
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts