Should HCEOs Wear Body Cameras?
Claire Sandbrook
CEO and Founder of Shergroup | Expert in Enforcement of Court Judgments | TV Consultant | Author | Vlogger | Podcaster | Digital Marketer | Community Builder | Public Speaker
At the recent AGM of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association a senior official presented from the ICO on the data protection issues of HCEOs wearing cameras as they go about their work.
Now I know you may think a number of us are "camera happy" when it comes to filming our work for TV shows but by the time of the ICO presentation the filming of THE ENFORCERS was "in the can" and it was a question of making sure all the i's were dotted, and t's crossed for broadcasting.
The ICO presentation was actually dealing with the subject of body cameras and HCEOs wearing these as part of their day to day routine work. I felt the subject was thought provoking in that I have seen plenty of HCEOs say they want to wear cameras on a full time basis so as to protect themselves from complaints by the public. But I haven't seen or heard much about the law in relation to the use of this very personal data and how it will be managed in accordance with the DPA.
In fact up until now I have resisted the use of body cameras for routine work (we have been filming major evictions since 2005 for evidence gathering purposes). I believe - perhaps naively - that we can still engage with the public without the need to film people when they are discussing their very private affairs in the middle of their living room. Perhaps you got a feel for what I mean from the TV programme. I wouldn't like someone filming all my bits and bobs even if it was just going to be for "internal use". Its an incredibly invasive thing that we do particularly as we are NOT the police and there is no need to go beyond the bounds of what is acceptable to get a judgment paid.
I feel that a review of our complaints stats over the last decade confirms my thought process - we rarely get a complaint for any form of poor behaviour by an officer - in fact we get more compliments and meals in restaurants from judgment debtors than we do complaints - and we don't get many!
Where I do feel cameras are needed is in eviction work - and again from the programme perhaps you can see why. The chap who was tasered by Suffolk Police, as Scott enforced a Writ of Possession, was clearly distressed - and had taken some illegal substances - hence his response to our eviction was significantly more aggressive than most people we meet. I was glad the film crew were there to capture that whole scene.
And why do I say that - well my No 1 reason for filming anyone is that of SAFETY. Safety of the public who are upset when we arrive, safety for the officers concerned, and safety for the police and any other third parties who are present. Sadly in this day and age it is not uncommon to meet defendants who threaten self harm or harm to others and for that reason and that reason alone the verbal and body language needs to be filmed.
But as the senior policy official from the ICO has said - we don't need to film everything and we should have a clear policy on how to use body cameras in our work. I agree with this - a document stating how and when HCEOs will use cameras is now vital to ensure we are all working to the same standards. So I was interested to see the attached White Paper issued by Microsoft, admittedly for police officers in the United States, on the subject of body worn cameras - which at least gets us off first base with a document which can be worked up into a full blown policy. I have attached a link.
And such a policy applies to all sorts of field based operatives who engage with the public in somewhat difficult circumstances. I am sure that this type of discussion is a growing area for lawyers, HR professionals, police officers and those engaged in security services. It is growing rapidly as an area to be regulated, principally by the ICO and no doubt other regulators will have their views.
For the moment I sound like King Canute - I know it. I don't like filming everything. I am looking to create an environment in which only those minutes of unsafe behaviour are captured including unsubstantiated complaints against my team. But I am open minded to the fact my stance may have to change and when clear policy guidelines are created I will obviously shift towards acceptable behaviour in this highly intrusive field.
And if you want to see more of what I mean look up THE ENFORCERS on ITV (https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/the-enforcers) or catch it on YOU TUBE.
Consultant
9 年It is interesting to read your comments. In todays society we have become a tad "nanny state" and it has meant that people find it hard to do their normal work without thinking of "what next" My daughter is a front line Police Officer and we often look at those awful youtube videos where members of the public wave video cameras or phones in front of officers noses trying to intimidate them or show off. If I had my way I would enforce a law that banned people from videoing in general public officers doing their duty. However with the HCEO's situation i think that it is something that should be considered seriously as an across the board rule. That doesnt mean that the cameras need to be on or used in every case. It could be that officers would have them turned off in all cases but if things begin to get a little risky they can advise the person they are dealing with that they have turned the device on and that recording is being made. Whether thought has to be given to a revision of the DPA rules (that in some cases forbid recording) or not it is definately something that is worthy of consideration. As you quite rightly say it is not for every instance. I even have a video camera in my car now just in case of an accident. It is becoming the norm to record, why shouldnt those who have to deal with instances that could prove dangerous or volatile be able to feel safer. I wish they had such cameras back in the 70's and 80's when I was repossessing cars, TV's and suchlike.