Body Worn Video (BWV) cameras have become one of the most significant developments in modern policing. Worn on an officer’s uniform, they record video and audio during interactions with the public and are intended to improve transparency and the collection of evidence. Their introduction has undoubtedly strengthened public confidence, assisted criminal investigations and resolved countless disputes. However, there is a growing misconception that BWV footage tells the whole story.
As lawyers acting in claims against the police, we regularly see people assume that if an incident is not captured on BWV, it simply did not happen. That assumption is wrong and can have negative consequences. BWV is evidence but it is not the only evidence.
BWV doesn’t record continuously
Contrary to popular belief, police BWV cameras do not record continuously. Most systems capture a rolling buffer, but footage is only saved once an officer activates the camera. Depending on force policy, officers generally begin recording when they believe an incident has started and stop once recording is no longer considered necessary or proportionate. That may mean that important events occurring immediately before, after, or outside the recorded interaction may never be captured. Sometimes there is an entirely innocent explanation. Other times there is not.
When cameras are switched off and why it matters
Concerns about officers failing to record incidents are not merely theoretical.
A BBC investigation uncovered more than 150 reports of alleged BWV misuse across police forces in England and Wales. The allegations included officers switching off cameras during incidents involving force, footage being lost or deleted, recordings not being marked as evidence and delays in preserving material that could later become crucial evidence.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council described the findings as “shocking” and announced strengthened guidance on the proper use of BWV. That does not mean every missing recording is deliberate as cameras can malfunction and human error happens. However, where important footage is absent, the legal team should never simply accept that fact without asking why.
A single angle can miss key events
Perhaps the greatest limitation of BWV is that it records only one viewpoint.
The camera is fixed to an officer’s chest, not their eyes. It can be obscured by clothing, arms, equipment or movement. It cannot show what is happening behind the officer, outside the frame or beyond its field of view.
The former Independent Police Complaints Commission (now the Independent Office for Police Conduct) warned against placing undue weight on BWV for precisely this reason. It noted that footage cannot capture atmosphere, tension, fear, smell, physical sensations or an officer’s perception of events. In some cases, the footage may present a misleading impression of what occurred. It is compelling evidence, but not complete evidence.
In a recent case I worked on, the client alleged that officers kicked him after he had been restrained. The officers’ BWV did not show the alleged assault because the camera had been directed towards the ground. If the investigation stopped there, the allegation may have been dismissed. Fortunately, a neighbour captured the incident from another angle. This revealed the officer kicking my client and was evidence that the BWV had completely missed. This case demonstrates that the absence of footage is not the same as the absence of evidence.
Disclosure and retention problems
Another issue is disclosure. BWV footage is often central to criminal proceedings, civil claims and police complaints. Yet relevant footage is not always disclosed immediately. Delays may occur because recordings need to be downloaded and reviewed. More concerning are cases where footage is not disclosed at all. If relevant recordings are missing, destroyed or withheld without proper explanation, that may become a significant issue during proceedings.
Looking beyond BWV: other evidence that can prove what happened
We cannot become overly reliant on BWV footage simply because it appears objective. In reality, investigations should consider every available source of evidence, including:
- CCTV
- Mobile phone recordings
- Witnesses
- Medical evidence including GP records
- Forensic evidence
- Officers’ notebook entries
- Written statements
BWV cameras remain one of the most important accountability tools available. They have improved transparency and provided evidence in countless cases. However, they are not the only source of evidence that should be considered, and they have limitations. Therefore, a careful examination of every available source of evidence must take place to ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the facts.
Contact our Specialist Actions Against Police Solicitors
If you believe you have been mistreated by the police, the presence (or absence) of BWV footage should not deter you from getting advice. Cases can be proved using a wider picture of evidence, including CCTV, witness accounts, medical records, call logs, and police documentation, even where BWV is limited, switched off, or doesn’t capture the key moment.
If you would like to discuss a potential claim or complaint against the police, please contact one of our specialist Actions Against Police Solicitors who can advise on the evidence to request and the next steps, or alternatively call us on 020 8492 2290.
