19 March (Part 3) - There’s none so blind…
257
places you can’t go in Bexley without having your movements tracked by Bexley
council; or 257 places you are safe from harm, or if not then at least the police will have
all the evidence they need for a successful prosecution. Take your pick. When Nicholas Dowling and I took
photographs of the Cinema Car Park
exactly a year ago we found ourselves identified by name via the CCTV, the details passed to a
councillor or someone else in a senior position, and
blogged in graphic terms as
to what the two of us had been up to in the gloom.
Don’t think that the CCTV system is not abused by Bexley council. One day when I
can find the time I shall tell you another story of how Bexley council uses CCTV
for the express purpose of getting people into trouble. Meanwhile I bring you
this little tale from another resident. The words are all his, but I did take
the precaution of going to see him and hearing the full story.
For legal reasons that whole story cannot be told but there are once again elements
of ‘it’s not what you know, it is who you know’. I’ll have to leave it to your
imagination as to why the attacker was identified on CCTV by some viewers but not by
the police officers in charge.
We learn from the News Shopper that Bexley Council has spent more than £2·3
million on CCTV cameras during the past four years. “Our CCTV network has played
a key role in helping Bexley have one of the lowest crime rates in London”
claimed Bexley cabinet member for community safety Peter Craske. “The cameras
led to 615 arrests in 2010 and 700 arrests in 2011, so they are delivering real
results in helping catch criminals and prevent crime from taking place.”
Let’s then see what happens when a serious assault in Bexley is captured on CCTV:
On 13 September 2010, a youth was sitting on a bench at a Bexley school when
another youth came and sat behind him and pushed him off. As the first youth
fell, he took hold of the second youth to get his balance, and the second youth
fell with him. The second youth got up, climbed on the bench and then jumped
down onto the first youth, punching him several times in the head and face,
which fractured his eye socket and left him with a permanent visual disability.
But - good news! The assault was captured on CCTV, which the Head teacher
confirmed shows the suspect pushing the victim off the bench, the victim pulling
the suspect off with him, and ‘the suspect jumping off the bench and punching
the victim three times with one fist to the head’. As Peter Craske claimed, this
could help catch criminals, and the suspect was indeed arrested. However, the
arresting officer DC Mahoney somehow failed to see the attack when he watched
the CCTV footage, noting in the crime report that CCTV ‘does not capture the
main assault. It shows the victim and the suspect falling to the floor at the
start of the fight but then they go out of view’. Perhaps, as he was watching,
his view was disturbed by a speck of dust landing in his eye at the crucial moment.
Back at the station, Bexley Police were rapidly gearing up for action. 23 days
after the arrest, DI Underwood set up an ‘Action Plan’ for PC Hooper to ‘assess’
the CCTV. Four days later, DS Betez noted that PC Hooper had still to ‘review CCTV
and confirm what it actually captures’. A further six days later, DI Underwood
noted that ‘enquiries continue in order to review the CCTV’. And only eight more
days after this, officers actually got around to ‘reviewing’ the CCTV and
failing to spot the assault once again, with DC Betez noting that CCTV ‘does not
capture the incident and is unused material with no evidential value’.
The evidence was submitted to the Prosecutor 46 days after the assault, and
without the CCTV footage, leading her to note of the CCTV ‘I am reliably
informed that it merely shows a group of persons at the end of a playground and
they cannot be identified. It is therefore of no evidential value… accordingly
I advise ‘No Further Action’. And the case was dropped.
What another great success for Bexley! There was a temporary arrest, boosting
the statistics that Councillor Craske could boast about. Police avoided both the
hassle of a prosecution and having to actually do anything about the CCTV
footage. CCTV suppliers got paid handsomely for all their expensive equipment.
And the attacker got let off.
Of course, there are a few downsides - the cash-strapped residents of Bexley
shelling out a huge amount for CCTV equipment that the Police chose not to use,
the local area remaining a violent and unsafe place despite the statistics, and
the victim failing to get any justice. But then let’s not focus on the
negatives, when there is clearly so much to be proud of in this borough.