Dear Readers,

May I draw your attention to chapter 6 of Assessing the Impact of CCTV (2005), a Home Office report into the effectiveness of CCTV?

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

Written by Prof. Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs, the report is widely held up as "evidence" that CCTV doesn't work.

In Chapter 6, Conclusions: Reflections on the effectiveness of CCTV, the report states:

"It would be easy to conclude from the information presented in this report that CCTV is not effective: the majority of the schemes evaluated did not reduce crime and even where there was a reduction this was mostly not due to CCTV; nor did CCTV schemes make people feel safer, much less change their behaviour. That, however, would be too simplistic a conclusion..."

Why?

- Simply measuring crime rates is a poor measure of the effectiveness of CCTV. There are simply too many factors which complicate the analysis, not least the fact that the introduction of CCTV can lead directly to an increase in recorded crime.

- The role of CCTV in high profile cases is lost in overall crime figures, the police say. "The importance of the crime-fighting role that CCTV plays in this
way should not be underestimated."

- The report also, by its own admission, doesn't address the evidential value of CCTV, and police had a generally positive view of CCTV.

The most telling observation of his report is that we are still "learning how to use CCTV".

In my view, CCTV is very much a hit and miss affair at the moment, sometimes achieving tremendous breakthroughs, and other times disappointing the victims, the police, the criminal justice system, the media and the public by its failure to deliver the evidence.

It is shocking that 12 years after pouring significant sums of money into CCTV, the government doesn't have a system in place for counting the number of cameras in the country. What's even more shocking is that in all those years, the previous government failed to introduce a comprehensive system of regulation, so we are left with a piecemeal and not very reassuring patchwork of Data Protection, Regulation of Investigatory Powers, Human Rights and other such Acts to control it.

And the police! Where do I start? The police have failed spectacularly to formulate a comprehensive and strategic approach to the use of CCTV. There are isolated examples of best practice, but in the main it's catch-as-catch-can when it comes to using CCTV.

Investigating police officers are not trained to collect CCTV evidence. When viewing recorded images, many officers (not all, but quite a few) will concentrate on just one camera, ignoring the wealth of evidence that might be captured by neighbouring cameras. And that's in a CCTV control room, where the evidence is presented to them on a plate and there's technical support to guide them through the process; what happens out on the street where they are investigating an assault at a corner shop? Is this lack of curiosity, laziness or ignorance?

There are numerous and isolated examples of good practice within the police forces. Some have specialists to go and "sweep up" CCTV evidence for an investigation. Some units place liaison officers in the control rooms to improve communications and provide value intelligence. Many have given CCTV operators access to Airwave radio, but in some cases this was a long and hard fought battle and I believe there are still a few forces that continue to withhold this vital tool.

I know of only two police forces in the country that have a system for processing images from end to end: from collecting the images, to analysing their contents, to extracting ID shots and identifying the suspects. These are Cheshire Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police, but even the Met's approach covers only a limited number of boroughs.

I know of only two areas in the country where the police or local authority have attempted to count the cameras: Cheshire Constabulary (again!) and Salford. Cheshire revealed recently that in a county of approximately one million people, there are 300 publicly-owned CCTV cameras and 9000 which are privately owned but look over areas to which the public have open access (eg, interior and exterior of shops and petrol stations).

Cheshire Constabulary is notable for its use of CCTV, but then perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the deputy chief constable, Graeme Gerrard, is ACPO's lead on CCTV and a major driver behind the National CCTV Strategy.

Where does that leave CCTV? Despite the hodge-podge approach, CCTV continues to score impressive breakthroughs. In Bradford, CCTV is credited with an arrest after a man was apparently seen on camera killing a woman with a crossbow. Meanwhile on a daily basis, CCTV provides incontrovertible evidence which leads to suspects pleading guilty without the need to go to court. CCTV operators regularly provide police with invaluable evidence, real-time intelligence and visual backup, and there are many commendations issued every year for this assistance.

On the other hand, it comes as no surprise that CCTV is criticised when it fails to deliver the evidence, doesn't have strong partnerships with the police and can't even answer the basic question of how many cameras there are.

Should we condemn the entire enterprise because of this? I leave the final word to Gill and Spriggs: "Perhaps a balanced judgement of the success of any measure – and one that is not often discussed in crime-prevention evaluations – should be reserved for times when the measure is working to its full potential and is installed correctly and in the right place. How useful are lessons about the effectiveness of measures that are still not fully developed? There is no doubt, judging by the information presented here, that this country is still learning how to use CCTV."

There's more to this report, and if you haven't read it, I would urge you to download a copy from the Home Office website.

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

~Tom Reeve

FBI video: How to do CCTV

Consultants, manufacturers and the CCTV User Group can bang on about image quality, system set up and user training until they're blue in the face, but leave it to the Americans to produce a lavish video to get the message across.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - obviously getting fed up (giddit?) about bad video - has deployed the talents of Hollywood to dramatise the importance of installing a good system and maintaining it.

The video is built around a storyline of a domestic terrorist who's blown up a bus with a home-made fertiliser bomb. The FBI scrambles agents to retrieve CCTV footage that might help identify the perpetrator, but they are frustrated in their attempts by video that is so bad that you couldn't identify your own mother from it.

One of the characters asks the video lab technician, "Can you enhance that for me?", to which he replies: "Sorry, no - I'm not a magician and this isn't a TV show!"

Finally, they find a pharmacy which has an excellent CCTV system and luckily the system installer happens to be on site so he's able to download exactly what they need and provide them with a site plan, too!

Back at the lab, they quickly find a recognition quality shot (15 per cent screen) and moments later we see armed officers burst into a motel room and arrest the suspect. Talk about instant results!

The moral of the story is, your video system could help the FBI/police crack a terrorist case but only if it's up to scratch (no mention of it being your patriotic duty to maintain your system but the implication was there). OK, maybe a bit heavy-handed as storylines go but the script is engaging, the production qualities are fantastic and the narrator, Annie Wersching from "24", does the intro and conclusion, lending a bit of glamour and probably earning the undying gratitude of the FBI.

The video is well worth a look. If you write to them, they might even send you a copy of the DVD (can anyone say Transatlantic partnership?).



Hit tip to Simon Lambert, Kevin White and Ilker Dervish.

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that Devon and Cornwall Police has also produced an excellent video about setting up CCTV in a pub or nightclub, entitled "Who are you looking at?". It's narrated by Prof. Martin Gill (OK, he's not Annie Wersching but he has gravitas, loads of gravitas) and benefits from high production qualities.

Hats off to Devon and Cornwall for producing this excellent video. They are happy to provide copies of the DVD in boxes of 50 copies for £100, ideal for distribution to pubs and clubs in your area. Contact Christopher Vercoe, tel. 01392-452691 or email christopher.vercoe@devonandcornwall.pnn.police.uk.

CCTV vital in murder trial: The News (Portsmouth)

CCTV provided vital evidence in a murder trial, effectively discrediting the defendant's alibi.

Read the full story here: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/CCTV-vital-in-murder-trial.6357898.jp

CCTV proved that for the defendant's alibi to be correct, he would have had to drive a distance of 1.06 miles in 7 seconds, or 545mph.

Thanks to Ilker for the tip.

Greater Manchester Police have issued CCTV of a man shooting at a house.



Now, I don't know if the video will lead directly to the identification of the perpetrators, but if they are arrested, it will help establish exactly what happened, how many shots were fired, when it occurred, and what type of vehicle they were driving. In the absence of any witnesses, this will prove very helpful.

Here's the other particulars that were issued with the footage:

• The attack took place on Leonard Street on Sunday at 9:45pm.
• The residents of the house were a 70-year-old man and his wife, who were watching television at the time.
• Several shots were fired and a window was smashed in the attack but nobody was injured.
• CCTV from the street shows a motorcycle stopping outside the house.
• The pillion passenger is seen to approach the house and fire a gun, before jumping back on the motorbike, which sped off.
• Police are appealing for anyone with information about the identity of the gunmen to call them on 0161 856 1722 or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

Helmet cams in Cornwall

This is an excellent story about police using helmet cameras in Devon and Cornwall, by Rowenna Davis at The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/09/police-head-cameras-antisocial-behaviour-cornwall

(So good, I wish I'd written it!)

Prime Minister Cameron reveals attitude toward CCTV?

An interesting exchange in the House of Commons recently helps to highlight the new Government's attitude toward CCTV.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-06-09b.322.2&s=cctv#g325.4

Harriet Harman (Leader of the Opposition; Camberwell and Peckham, Labour)

Before the election, the coalition parties talked about ending what they called the surveillance society. The coalition agreement said that the Government would further regulate the use of closed circuit television, but on Monday, the Home Secretary could not tell the House what that would mean in practice. Can the Prime Minister tell us now?

David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative)

… On surveillance, let me be clear that I support CCTV cameras. I have them in my constituency and they are very effective, and when I worked at the Home Office many years ago I championed such schemes, but I think everyone understands that the level of surveillance has become very great in our country. As well as the issue of CCTV, there is the issue of how many different sorts of officials are allowed to enter people's houses without permission. We will be bringing forward legislation to deal with that. I know that the Labour party has given up on civil liberties, and that the right hon. and learned Lady used to be head of what was the National Council for Civil Liberties-that was all a long time ago-but we on this side of the House think civil liberties are important.

Harriet Harman (Leader of the Opposition; Camberwell and Peckham, Labour)

May I ask the Prime Minister the question again, because I was asking not about people entering people's houses, but about CCTV? Can I tell him what Theresa was saying to me on Friday? [Hon. Members: "Theresa?"] Not the Home Secretary, but Theresa from the Poets Corner estate in my constituency. That Theresa is the one who knows about living on an estate that needs CCTV. Let me tell the Prime Minister that such people do not want to be told by this Government that it is going to be made harder to get the CCTV that they need on their estates. I press him on this because it is about people feeling, and being, safe in their communities. Will he guarantee that he will not do anything to make it harder to get or to use CCTV?

David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative)

The right hon. and learned Lady should understand that this is all about proportionality and making sure that we have a system that helps protect people while respecting civil liberties.

Bad news: No answer from the Prime Minister to reassure the public that they won’t make it harder for members of the public to get CCTV cameras where they are needed.

Good news: The Prime Minister acknowledged that:

1. He supports CCTV
2. CCTV is very effective in his constituency
3. When he worked at the Home Office, he championed many schemes.
   

Before the election you couldn't get a straight answer out of the Conservative Party about CCTV and a search of the Internet for David Cameron and CCTV turned up no further clues. Perhaps they were trying to keep David Davis quiet.

Now, one month into the new Government and the Prime Minister reveals his true colours.

Oh it’s a bitter pill for our friends at Big Brother Watch to swallow. They were so hoping that the Government would row back on 16 or more years of development of CCTV. (A policy which, as the PM highlighted, was introduced by the previous Conservative government!)

BBW immediately dashed out this statement, attacking the PM's position on CCTV:

"It was very disappointing to see the Prime Minister soften his position on CCTV today. For the past decade, countless millions of pounds have been spent increasing the level of camera surveillance in this country, with no appreciable reduction in crime or increase in safety as a result. If the Coalition Government is serious about privacy and civil liberties, it will make sure that it tackles the public sector’s wasteful mania for CCTV as soon as possible."

Wasteful mania? More like, wise use of council funds to help support the police and focus resources on areas which need policing most.

You just can't argue with the facts: CCTV is effective; the public and the police like it; and councillors would be punished at the polls if they cut it.

CCTV saves the "crossbow cannibal"

Prison guard's casual glance at CCTV screen stopped the 'crossbow cannibal' from killing himself

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285751/Guard-saw-crossbow-cannibal-Stephen-Griffiths-suicide-bid-CCTV.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0qXCIZR5W

That's the headline in the Daily Mail website today.

Stephen Griffiths, 40, who is on remand for murder at Wakefield Prison in West Yorkshire was seconds from death when a prison guard saw on CCTV that he had tied a plastic bag over his head.

Ironic, then, that Griffiths - who was arrested after a caretaker of a block of flats witnessed a man attacking a woman while he was reviewing CCTV footage - was saved by CCTV.

Or another way of looking at it: officers investigating this case have had two incredibly lucky breaks as a result of CCTV. According to the Daily Mail report, detectives rushed to the prison when they heard the news and were "incandescent with rage", having devoted enormous resources to the investigation.

All I can add is, thank goodness for CCTV. It has provided two vital breaks in this horrific investigation.

This incident highlights the need for regulation of CCTV. We were incredibly lucky that the caretaker of the block of flats reviewed the tapes. There is no law that requires the owner of a CCTV system to review recorded footage, so thank goodness those procedures were in place at these flats. Perhaps this is an area that the government could look at when they are reviewing regulation?