ISE03/17-18

• The Hong Kong Police used body-worn video cameras ("BWVCs")^{1Legend symbol denoting BWVCs are small devices worn and attached to the officers' uniform to capture video and audio evidence. Their use must be overt. Hence, BWVCs usually have a front-screen showing people who are being filmed, or a red light flashing when recording. The position of the camera can allow those viewing the footage to see the situation from the officer's perspective.} for surveillance on a trial basis during 2013-2015,^{2Legend symbol denoting The Hong Kong Police conducted a nine-month trial on BWVCs in 2013, and then another 12-month trial in 2014-2015. They reported to the Panel on Security the first trial findings in March 2014, and second trial findings as well as the way forward in May 2017. The Police believed that BWVCs could enhance evidence gathering and increase transparency and accountability of the police action.} in view of their small size and operational flexibility compared with fixed surveillance cameras and handheld video recording cameras. According to the Police, the trial results were satisfactory, as the video footages captured by BWVCs could provide more accurate records of incidents than verbal account. While the number of BWVCs owned by the Police quadrupled from 300 to 1 400 during 2016-2017, the Police announced in May 2017 that they would further roll out more BWVCs in 2018 and equip all frontline officers with the device by 2021.
• Conceivably, BWVCs may enable police officers to collect evidence at scene in a more objective, accountable and transparent manner, resulting in more effective law enforcement. However, some Members are concerned that BWVCs may not be able to provide a comprehensive and fair account of the incidents, as police officers could decide "whether and when to commence recording" and the action of police officers themselves is not video-filmed. In addition, BWVCs could collect more information and data than necessary, giving rise to privacy implications.
• This issue of Essentials begins with a review of recent applications of BWVCs in Hong Kong, along with a discussion of their benefits and public concerns. This will be followed by a factual account on the application of BWVCs by police forces in the United Kingdom ("UK"), a global pioneer in the use of BWVCs for law enforcement, with a focus on how the public concerns over BWVCs were addressed in the UK.

Use of BWVCs in police surveillance

• BWVCs were first applied by the police in Plymouth of the UK in 2005, and were progressively extended to other advanced places such as the Netherlands, France, Australia and the United States ("US"). Following these overseas precedents, the Hong Kong Police have introduced BWVCs on a trial basis since March 2013, recording a total of 724 footages in 493 incidents during 2013-2017. About 24% of these footages were subsequently used in investigations or submitted to court as evidence. The Police now own about 1 400 BWVCs and have plans to procure 3 000 more BWVCs at a cost of HK$3,000 each in 2018. More than 10 000 police officers have also received training in the use of BWVCs at present.
• By and large, the application of BWVCs in police surveillance is perceived to bring the following benefits, based on local and overseas experiences:
  
  

  (a)	More reliable account of incidents: As BWVCs may be able to capture the broader circumstances of incidents, these video footages could improve accountability of and public trust in the police force;
  (b)	Facilitating investigation and prosecution: Video footages captured by BWVCs could be used as evidence for further crime investigation by the Police. If the Police decide to prosecute, the footages could be used as evidence in court;
  (c)	Speeding up resolution of complaints or lawsuits: BWVCs could minimize conflicts in testimony and expedite resolution of citizen complaints or lawsuits; and
  (d)	Cooling down confrontations: BWVCs are considered effective deterrent against aggressive behaviour. People tend to calm down when they know they are being filmed, resulting in reduced conflicts between the police and citizens. According to a study led by the University of Cambridge covering about 1.5 million officer hours and 2 million of population just released in 2016, BWVCs resulted in a 93% reduction in the number of complaints against the police.3Legend symbol denoting See Ariel, Sutherland, & Henstock. (2016a).

• On the other hand, there are also concerns and doubts arising from the use of BWVCs in law enforcement, including the following:
  
  

  (a)	Increased use of police force under certain circumstances: According to a study, police use-of-force may actually increase if officers have more discretion over when to turn on and off during police-public interaction;4Legend symbol denoting See Ariel, Sutherland, & Henstock. (2016b).
  (b)	Privacy implications: First, as it is entirely up to the police officers to decide when to begin and stop recording, there are concerns that they may capture a lot of footages of people who are unrelated to crime. Secondly, BWVCs may capture the traumatic moments of victims of crime, people involved in medical emergencies or accidents against their will. Thirdly, there are concerns that BWVCS may violate the rights and legal privilege of some people such as witnesses, confidential informants, victims, and people subject to intimate searches; and
  (c)	Right of access to personal data: Under relevant personal data protection laws, members of the public may be entitled to access to BWVCs recordings that contain their images. This may create extra administrative burdens to the police force as unrelated images may need to be redacted.

Application of BWVCs in Hong Kong

• In response to the aforementioned concerns, the Hong Kong Police explained to the Panel on Security in May 2017 that it has "clear and stringent guidelines" on the use of BWVCs:
  
  

  (a)	Incident-specific recording: BWVCs could only be used in "confrontational scenarios" or "incidents where a breach of the peace had occurred or was likely to occur";
  (b)	Advance notice before recording: Police officers using BWVCs should be in uniform and should overtly wear the cameras. Unless impracticable, they need to notify the persons concerned before commencement of recording. In the recording process, BWVCs would flash with red light, with an outward-facing screen enabling the persons concerned to know that they are being video-filmed and see the captured images. Before the commencement of video-recording, the police officer need to first record his own name, time, place and a description of the incident;
  (c)	Deletion of video recording without evidential value: Those footages considered to be relevant for investigation would be converted into two copies of CD-ROMs, one serving as exhibit and the other one as working copy for further investigation. For those footages without investigative or evidential value, they would be deleted after 31 days from the date it was produced; and
  (d)	Compliance with privacy requirements: The Police state that members of the public have the right to request access to their own personal data kept by the Police under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, including footages captured by BWVCs. All such requests would be handled in accordance with the Ordinance.

• In spite of the above reassurance, some Members still have reservations on the use of BWVCs as the relevant police guidelines are regarded as internal documents and are not made available to the public.^{5Legend symbol denoting The Police have only released limited information on its website over when the device is not to be used, such as when intimate searches are undertaken or in private residential flats except when violence has occurred or is about to occur. In replying to a question raised at the Legislative Council meeting of 2 March 2016, the Secretary for Security said that the guidelines on the use of BWVCs involved operational details, hence it was not appropriate to disclose the guidelines. Nevertheless, the Police reassured Members that the guidelines were not inconsistent with the requirements of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.}

Application of BWVCs in the United Kingdom

• As discussed above, the police in Plymouth of the UK are the pioneer of using BWVCs in 2005.^{6Legend symbol denoting In 2007, the Devon and Cornwall police force tested head-mounted cameras in a district of Plymouth within which serious assaults and disorders frequently occurred at certain blind spots "unseen" by fixed surveillance camera. The trial was considered as very successful, resulting in a reduction in violent crimes, increase in detection rate, and time saving in prosecution. That trial was followed by trials conducted by other police forces including the largest one run by MPS in London in 2014-2015 in which 500 cameras and 800 officers were involved. Satisfied with the trial results, MPS decided in 2016 a full scale roll-out of BWVCs by end of 2017 for all its 22 000 officers. Within a decade, more than 32 UK police forces have adopted BWVCs at different scales.} So far, the device has been adopted by 70% of the 45 local police forces in the UK. More specifically for London, nearly all of the 22 000 officers in the Metropolitan Police Service ("MPS") will be fully equipped with BWVCs by end-2017, making it the largest police force equipped with BWVCs in the world so far.
• With its decade-long implementation experience, the UK government has strived to keep an appropriate balance between law enforcement and privacy protection in the use of BWVCs, with the following key institutional safeguards:
  
  

  (a)	Existing legal framework on surveillance cameras also applicable to BWVCs: As there are some 6 million surveillance cameras throughout the UK, the existing legal framework is already elaborate enough to address various public concerns over video footages captured by the Police even before the proliferation of BWVCs. First, the Data Protection Act 1998 states that data processed by CCTV, stills camera or any other media are counted as "personal data" and are subject to statutory regulation.7Legend symbol denoting Although the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in principle grants the public a general right to access to information including BWVCs recordings held by public authorities, such access will usually be refused if they involve the release of personal data which may violate the Data Protection Act 1998. Secondly, while BWVCs are used in overt manner, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 sets out the provisions that authorities must comply with if BWVCs are deployed in a covert manner. Thirdly, concerning the retention of image, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 requires the police to disclose both used and un-used video images in criminal investigation. Deletion of any images before the expiry of the retention periods may amount to a breach of the Act. Surveillance Camera Code of Practice: All surveillance camera operators including the police force have a duty to follow the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice ("the Code") introduced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, unless with strong justification for otherwise.8Legend symbol denoting The Code covering CCTV, drones, and associated software using data collected sets out 12 guiding principles for the operators of surveillance camera. For instance, the Code states that "use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need." While a Commissioner of Surveillance Camera is appointed to ensure compliance with the Code, to further boost public trust in BWVCs, an independent third party is invited by the Commissioner to audit the BWVCs system of the police. Under this voluntary accreditation scheme, those police forces complying with the Code will be issued a mark showing to the public. So far, only two out of 45 local police forces (i.e. the Metropolitan Police Service and Greater Manchester Police) have been awarded the accreditation.9Legend symbol denoting There are two types of accreditation. Any organization completing a desktop self-assessment to demonstrate compliance with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice will receive a partial certification valid for one year. To achieve a full certification, the organization has to commission an independent auditor to audit the surveillance camera system and procedures. The full certification will last for five years, subject to annual reviews. Those awarded with the full certification can use the Commissioner of Surveillance Camera's certification mark throughout the five years.
  (b)	Publication of nationwide guidance on BWVCs: To assist police officers and to enhance transparency in BWVC deployment, the Home Office published a guidance on BWVCs ("the guidance") first in July 2007, followed by an update issued by the College of Policing in May 2014. The guidance contains key guiding principles and recommendations that seek to ensure that the use of BWVCs is "lawful, proportionate and justified", with advice covering when recording should begin and stop, and circumstances when recording is undesirable or permission from those being filmed should be sought. The public can access and download the national guidance available on the internet.10Legend symbol denoting MPS also issued its own guidance on the use of BWVCs, making reference to the national guidance and the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. The MPS's guidance has also been made publicly available.
  (c)	Privacy impact assessment for surveillance cameras: Police forces are also advised to carry out a voluntary privacy impact assessment when new cameras are added or a new surveillance camera system is installed, ensuring a scrutiny of the purpose, value and necessity of the new system on the one hand, and identification of privacy risks and their solutions on the other. It is also recommended that public consultation over a new camera system be incorporated into such assessment.

• While some organisations are still questioning the perceived benefits of BWVCs and whether the above safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy of the public, the use of BWVCs has become commonplace in the UK. Taking London as an example, almost 800 000 video clips have been recorded in the year ending August 2017, with more than 60% of which automatically deleted under the existing retention policy.^{11Legend symbol denoting The data retention policy in the UK is similar to that in Hong Kong. Recordings will be deleted after 31 days if they are found of no evidential value.} MPS also shared a monthly average of 3 000 clips with the Crown Prosecution Service.
• The public in London also appeared to be receptive towards BWVCs. According to a survey conducted in London in 2014-2015, most of the respondents (up to 95%) believed that BWVCs could deliver the benefits, while 62% believed that privacy would not be affected.^{12Legend symbol denoting The survey was conducted during MPS's BWVC trials between 2014 and 2015. The trials produced 48 000 recordings and about 12 000 hours of audio or video footage, representing an average of around 15 minutes per recording. About 28% of the recorded footage was marked as "evidential" with the potential for use for criminal justice purposes. Between May 2014 and March 2015, there was only one complaint against the use of BWVCs, which was later withdrawn, according to MPS.} Yet the use of BWVCs by police forces outside London has drawn mixed responses, with allegations against forces of keeping footages beyond the 31-day limit and failure to conduct privacy impact assessment.

Prepared by CHEUNG Chi-fai
Research Office
Information Services Division
Legislative Council Secretariat
12 December 2017