New tasers are understood to be rolling out to frontline cops, but why does this mean they could be forced to wear body-cameras. Video / NZ Herald
Front-line police officers wearing body cameras is a matter of “when not if,” according to the head of the Police Association.
However, concerns from police and civil liberties campaigners remain about the cost of storing the footage, who will have access to it, and what controls there are on that access.
Last week, police announced they are replacing their tasers with a newer model over the next three years.
The current tasers have a built-in camera, however, the new model does not. Most other police jurisdictions around the world rely on body-worn cameras to record taser use.
Deputy Commissioner Tania Kura said in the announcement the wider question of whether body-worn cameras were appropriate in New Zealand was “being considered separately”.
Deputy Commissioner Tania Kura says police have monitored the use of body-worn cameras and any potential benefits for “several years”. Photo / RNZ
Police Association president Chris Cahill told the Herald that its members were “in favour” of body cameras and believed it was a “matter of when not if.
“We think overall the idea is that they’re a much more complete record of what’s occurred rather than a one-sided ‘I filmed this on my phone’. It will be advantageous to everyone to understand what has occurred,” Cahill said.
However, the issue of body cameras came with “two big problems”, which have to be resolved first.
First was the “massive cost” to store the footage, which would run into millions of dollars, the Herald understands.
“[It’s] way more than buying the cameras and it’s an ongoing cost,” Cahill said.
“We need to be clear. What do we have to store and how long do we have to store it for so that the costs can be manageable.”
He said smaller police forces around the world had ended up removing body cameras as the cost was “unaffordable”.
The other issue was who could access the footage, and how much extra work could be placed on to police to deal with requests for it if it was available under the Official Information Act.
“Given that police currently have 90,000 Official Information Act requests a year, it will just potentially cause significant problems.
Axon's TASER 10. Photo / Axon
“If you have a defended hearing for an arrest could the lawyer ask for the footage of that arrest and every other arrest the officer’s made in the last two years?”
Cahill believed legislation would be required to say who could access the footage, and how long it had to be stored for.
He said he did not believe body cameras would be in place in the next two years, but said it was “very much a prevalent discussion.
“It’s not one of those things you can kick under the carpet. I think what police didn’t want was that it was driven by decisions made around replacing tasers.”
Kura told the Herald that police had monitored the use of body-worn cameras and any potential benefits for “several years.
“More recently this has included commissioning the Evidence-Based Policing Centre to carry out research into their effectiveness. Currently, much of the evidence to support its use is inconclusive.
“We’re aware many overseas jurisdictions use body-worn cameras in various capacities, but more work is required to understand if this is required or appropriate specifically in the New Zealand Policing context.”
There was currently no timeframe set, Kura said.
“While the introduction of TASER 10 has prompted us to investigate body-worn cameras further, an introduction of a body-worn camera would have implications beyond use with TASER 10, including legal and privacy issues.
“There are also significant financial considerations to be made. Therefore, body-worn cameras are being considered separately to TASER 10.”
Police would engage with external stakeholders from various panels and forums including representatives from across the community.
NZ Council for Civil Liberties chairman Thomas Beagle told the Herald the council was “generally in favour” of increased transparency and accountability, adding it seemed police body-cams were a “step in that direction”.
He said there were some “complicating factors”, including who could access the footage and what controls there were on that access.
“For example, it seems only fair that people making complaints about police misbehaviour should be able to get access to the footage of the incident. But what if it’s someone with a history of violence who wants access to the footage to be able to identify other people who were also involved?
“And if it’s the police controlling access to that footage, there is obviously an incentive for them to suppress it if it does show police officers behaving badly.”
Beagle said people should be able to access police footage of events they are involved in unless there were good reasons why such access should be withheld.
“These judgements should not be exclusively left up to the police as they are an interested party. So if we’re going to bring in body cameras for police we need clear standards and guidelines about access to that footage, overseen by an independent reviewer.”
Sam Sherwood is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers crime. He is a senior journalist who joined the Herald in 2022, and has worked as a journalist for 10 years.
