disclosure, review and redaction processes, which are resource intensive and costly to support (Blake, 2014). Conversations with U.S. police agencies suggested that disclosure problems can arise when multiple officers using BWV are present at an incident. One officer will take the lead and submit a report, with the danger that not all available BWV clips are noted. The project coordinator observed that this happened at times during the EPS pilot. There is some recent data management software that can help monitor this, but further testing would be essential. In Canada, there are concerns about wide-ranging requests for disclosure by defence counsel, such as asking for all previous BWV footage from a particular member. Such requests have been made for CCTV footage from EPS facilities.73 Members are also concerned that defence might focus on minor policy breaches, especially use of language, to divert focus from actual charges. Over-burdened prosecutors (for whom time is of the essence) work with transcripts of formal interviews that are videotaped; many feel it is quicker to review a transcript than a recording. 74 Responsibilities for resourcing and providing transcripts from video vary across jurisdictions. In Victoria, B.C., where responsibility lay with the police service, the cost was considered a prohibitive factor in going forward with a BWV program (Laur et al, 2010). 3.3. Unanswered Questions about the BWV and the Court Process As yet, there is no evidence of solid evidentiary value from BWV. The data from the EPS 19month operational phase are sparse. Serious charges that go to trial often take a year or more to resolve. Feedback from EPS members suggests that BWV probably helps to discourage notguilty pleas for minor ticket offences. We have seen that the introduction of BWV evidence to a previously unaware court can cause adjournment, as can a lack of viewing equipment. And we expect that BWV evidence will add time to prosecutorial review of cases. Also, prosecutors expect that BWV will result in more time on the witness stand for members and technology experts (Blake, 2014). Other issues include: access to suitable equipment for reviewing video footage (for all court participants including defence counsel and unrepresented accused); whether transcripts are needed for BWV footage; and, if so, who would provide these transcripts. Until we see examples of BWV evidence used during court proceedings, these important issues remain unclear.
73
Robert Palser of the Alberta Prosecution Service mentioned the issue of wide-ranging disclosure requests during his presentation at the CPS BWC Symposium, noting that almost anything that is “fruit of the investigation” can be considered “likely relevant” (Stratton CPS Symposium notes). 74 Presentations by Robert Palser and Meagan Blake (Stratton CPS Symposium notes).
80