Chief Inspector Tony Jones Merseyside Police Police and BWV Chief Inspector Tony Jones Merseyside Police

Who am I? Currently on the Command Team of the Matrix Department The Head of the Roads Policing Department for Merseyside Police Will take over joint-responsibility for Firearms, Disruption, Roads Policing, Dogs and Mounted Departments from next April. Previously worked in Police BCUs at Constable, Sergeant, Inspector and Chief Inspector-level - was a Critical Incident Manager and Neighbourhood Inspector. Was responsible for the introduction of centralised criming for the force and also the introduction of laptops and BWV cameras. Have an MSc in Police Leadership and am currently undertaking a PG Cert in Advanced Policing Studies

Body Worn Video – the new evidence? Introduced into Merseyside in 2014. Remit was evidence not transparency Was an aid to officer evidence not a replacement Was an aid to officers in complaint matters Assaults against police Courts and IPCC view? “Promote the best possible use of BWV, so that it assists investigations and helps create an accurate picture of events, without compromising the investigation into that event…” (College of Policing Website Oct 2016) CoP – APP - BWV may be used to capture the first account of victims and/or witnesses Such recordings do not replace the need for formal written statements from victims or witnesses, but they can be used as supporting evidence. They may also be considered as hearsay evidence

Body Worn Video – It can only be good then…? What if the officer forgot to switch it on? What if there is a problem with the camera? What about before and/or after the incident? Which footage do you keep and how long for? What about something which comes in after the footage has gone? Does everyone have it? Use in writing statements? Can officers watch footage first? Why are you videoing me….?

Body Worn Video – So What next? Merseyside looking at moving to 100% personal issue. Still a debate over transparency versus evidence. Firearms and BWV Public Order and BWV CEDIS – an integrated criminal justice solution PACE Interviews….? ESN and beyond – single device?

Debate The future - Transparency or Evidence? What do you think?

Transparency or Evidence? The Peelian Principles of Policing The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force Police seek and preserve public favour not by pandering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it

Transparency or Evidence? College of Policing and Accredited Professional Practice for BWV Principle 4 The operational use of body-worn video must be proportionate, legitimate and necessary. Compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and Surveillance Camera Code of Practice will ensure the use of BWV is always proportionate, legitimate and necessary. Continuous, non-specific recording is not permitted. Principle 5 Use of body-worn video will be incident specific. Officers will use common sense and sound judgement when using body-worn video, in support of the principles of best evidence. Principle 6 Body-worn video does not replace conventional forms of evidence gathering (such as written statements and Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) interviews), it supports them.

Transparency or Evidence? Changed your mind?

And on another note about problem solving… Some food for thought and a plea from me to you….

KSI Rates on Merseyside Points to note: 2010 – 2015 is +14% Forecast based -4%   2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL 770 706 626 542 550 553 511 521 566 555 613 588 Projection  561

Fatal RTCs – Food for thought… 1st Jan – 21st Aug 2013 20 fatal collisions 8 natural causes. 1 suicide Yearly Breakdown 34 collisions, 34 dead. 9 natural causes 2 suicide TOTAL = 23 1st Jan – 21st Aug 2014 24 fatal collisions.   3 natural causes. 37 collisions, 37 dead 6 natural causes 3 not counting statistically (outside 30 days) TOTAL = 27 1st Jan –21st Aug 2015 21 fatal collisions.. 1 not counting 5 natural causes. 31 fatal collisions 1 not counting statistically (private drive) 5 natural causes TOTAL YTD = 25   1st – 21st Aug 2016 17 fatal collisions. 3 natural causes FATAL RTCs down on previous years at this YTD point  Murders on Merseyside 2013/14 - 14 2014/15 - 26 2015/16 - 10 2016 YTD - 6

KSI and Enforcement – it matters!

So what Problem Solving Approach do we use? Victim - Could be anyone of us and unfortunately is. Biggest vulnerable groups are: Elderly Drivers Cyclists Motorcyclists Adult Pedestrians (Young drivers are an issue on a national and European-level – we’ve done Engage for some time) Offender - Could be anyone of us and unfortunately is…. RPU Officer in recent RTC Location - - Could be anywhere and unfortunately is…. So what about hotspots? So that clearly doesn’t work for Roads Policing does it…?

So what approach can you use when you know the problem? (SARA) Results from literature review and detailed analysis of a independent study sponsored by TVP Randomisation of locations and times of enforcement should be used to increase the perceived risk of detection. Both general and specific enforcement should be used. Marked and stationary policing should be used for general deterrence and unmarked policing should be used for specific deterrence. Different groups of people, times of year and locations should be targeted (this includes engagement) Appropriate media and educational campaigns should be considered alongside any enforcement strategies to ensure the biggest and farthest reaching effects. Enforcement Works….but we also do engagement too!

Questions ?