Research published by ANU criminologist Kathryn Henne suggests that police body-worn cameras may not be as effective as policymakers around the world have asserted.
Three weeks ago, the ACT Government changed laws to allow police to use body-worn cameras (BWC) on private property without consent, so long as they are overt (except where this would cause or increase danger). ACT police have used body-worn cameras since 2019, including when they draw firearms or tasers. Evidence captured by cameras would help both police and defendants in criminal proceedings, an ACT spokesperson said.
Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury said at the time that the reform would make the police more transparent and accountable – a global concern after the death of George Floyd last year.
“That’s a problematic claim to make because the findings are mixed; there’s really no strong evidence base for those claims,” said Professor Henne, director of the ANU School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet).
Studies in favour of body-worn cameras are inconsistent, Professor Henne argues; they focus only on the interaction between private officers and citizens, and not on the social context of those interactions or how footage is used.
While she says the ACT government has been very good at consulting the public, Professor Henne believes that consultation must continue, and that the government must create checks and balances against misuse of BWC data.
“If the pitch is that these are going to create more accountability, we need to make sure there are governance mechanisms to ensure that actually happens,” she said.
“One of the things that is missing is that we don’t have really clear protections around how the expansion will be governed. … Not having total police control over the process will be really important.”
At the moment, Professor Henne says, police can govern themselves – “one of the bigger problems we have with body-worn camera evidence”. She supports approaches used by other jurisdictions, which have introduced community board involvement and stronger review procedures.
Other jurisdictions also require the mandatory activation of body-worn cameras. Under the new reforms, police equipped with a camera must use the camera whenever they are dealing with the public – but a clause in the current ACT legislation, Professor Henne noted, allows police to turn off cameras when their use is not practical. She disagrees: “If it’s going to be on, we want to see the whole thing,” she said.
Retention of information is another concern.
“We don’t want data breaches, misuse by police officers, or long-term surveillance of the public,” Professor Henne said.
If a complaint is made against an officer, that officer should not be able to review the footage in advance. In some North American jurisdictions, victims lose say of how video evidence is used once it enters court; she wants to make sure they still have agency in that process. The public should also have more access to footage.
In the USA, she observes, some states have proposed legislation about how body-worn cameras are used. (In Colorado, for instance, recordings must be released to the public within three weeks after the agency receives a complaint of misconduct, except for privacy concerns or where release would interfere with an investigation. South Carolina requires police to keep footage for at least a fortnight, and Illinois for at least three months, or two years if flagged.)
“It would be great for the ACT to think about how those lessons might be modelled onto the unique circumstances of our Territory,” Professor Henne said.
Government response: Amendments are compatible with human rights
An ACT Government spokesperson said that the amendments had been carefully developed; safeguards were built in to balance the operational needs of community policing and human rights, including the right to privacy.
Community consultation was important in developing the reforms. Public feedback was broadly supportive, and many were interested in the accompanying safeguards.
In March 2021, 1,617 Canberrans responded to a YourSay Community Panel to gauge community views on police use of BWCs. More than three in five (63% of) respondents supported police use of BWCs in private premises without the consent of the lawful occupier. Respondent comments raised issues of accountability, privacy, and access to footage.
“The ACT Government looked at this feedback closely, along with the approach to the use of body-worn cameras in other jurisdictions, and used it to inform the accountability, privacy, and access safeguards that are part of the reform,” the spokesperson said.
The government is developing Chief Police Officer guidelines which will detail where body-worn cameras may and must be used, and the requirements for storage, use, and disposal of a recording, including information about how a member of the public may access it, the spokesperson said.
“A number of these requirements will reflect the extensive Commonwealth legislative requirements already in place for the retention and sharing of information by police to ensure privacy is maintained.”
The guidelines must also include a statement about how human rights have been considered. This will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly as a disallowable instrument, so the Assembly and the community can scrutinise the content of the guidelines, including their compatibility with human rights.
Community programs help more
Professor Henne also believes that governments must invest more in community-led justice.
“Academics and policymakers are focusing so much on body-worn cameras as the answer that we’re not giving nearly enough attention to community-led programs.”
Broader reforms that address systematic inequality and include support programs for mental health, housing, healthcare, and after-school initiatives would benefit marginalised communities more, her research finds. The ACT, for instance, has an Indigenous sentencing circle, housing program, and health clinic.
“ACT Policing and the ACT Government are committed to working closely with the community on solutions to prevent crime and address the root causes of offending,” the spokesperson said.
“The ACT is a leader in the area of justice reinvestment, prioritising policies and programs that focus on reducing crime and diverting people from the criminal justice system.”
The ‘Building Communities, Not Prisons’ program provides supported housing options and early support for people living with mental illness or disability, and enhance community building capabilities.
This year, the ACT Government invested $14 million in the Police, Ambulance and Clinician Early Response (PACER) team, extending the service to seven days a week. A police officer, paramedic, and mental health clinician work together in the same vehicle to respond to, assess and help people experiencing a mental health crisis in the community.
Get all the latest Canberra news, sport, entertainment, lifestyle, competitions and more delivered straight to your inbox with the Canberra Daily Daily Newsletter. Sign up here.
