1. WMP Body Worn Video Trial West Midlands Police Body Worn Video Trial Inspector Darren Henstock

2. Rapid entry

3. Theory BWV CCTV Observation Certainty of apprehension Modified behaviour

4. Why Test? Rialto Trial – One US based study Benefits driven by suppliers and press? Magical panacea in times of austerity Rigorous evidence of benefits

5. The WMP Replication: Hypotheses Wearing body worn videos by patrol officers will: Decrease number of recorded incidents of use of force Decrease number of citizens complaints Increase satisfaction of members of the public coming into contact with the police Improve self-legitimacy of police officers Increase rate of prosecution/charge/early guilty plea Compared to not wearing cameras

6. Birmingham South RCT 46 officers across two units 430 officer shifts over 6 months 592 arrest records 99% compliance with random allocation Part of multisite RCT with intention to do 24 tests in West Yorkshire, Peterborough, PSNI, Wolverhampton, Sacramento, etc.

7. Deployment Protocol Trial looked at personal issue (BS) and pool issue (WV) to response teams Compulsory to wear Officer discretion to record incident High visibility only, no covert use Only standard response deployment, no Public Order/ Football/ Firearms etc. Pre-record shut off for trial

8. Findings

9. Prosecutions Overall charges: 12% Increase –DV incident charges –13% increase –Public Order offence charges – 22% increase –Racially-motivated incidents charges –12% increase Early Guilty Pleas: 9% Increase –Overall increase in charges and EGP’s leads to 13% reduction in NGP’s - over 2000 less cases/annum.

10. Complaints Birmingham South: 100% reduction in complaints registered against officers in participating units. Wolverhampton: 46% reduction in complaints across all response officers £267,000 in staff and officer savings for investigation of complaints against response officers (31% of complaints relate to response officers)

11. Use of Force The devil is in the details… The complexities exceed the bottom line story

12. Fisher’s Test: p= 0.476 - Not statistically significant

13. Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0002*** 106% increase in use of physical restraint when no cameras present Fisher’s Test p= 0.0011*** 100% increase in use of handcuffs when offender is non-compliant Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0008*** 89% increase in chances of force being used if cameras are not present, when complaint handcuffs category is removed Masks the effect

14. Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0008 – Very statistically significant

15. 54% reduction in confrontational encounters

16. Unconsidered consequences: effect of force on suspect & Injury to officers

17. Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0011*** 188% increase in chance of offender being injured when cameras not present

18. Fisher’s Test: p= 0.0873 250% increase in reported injuries to officers

19. Reflection from the wider RCT

20. Compliance with protocols

21. Consistent reductions

22. Enhance Transparency and Accountability

23. There is no turning back… Asking whether or not we should procure BWCs is last year’s question….. What we can offer insight on: Use of Force Complaints Effect on CJS outcomes Activation policies Non-response policing environments What is not considered yet: How BWV effects legitimacy/public support The technological coupling of BWV evidence and other criminal case elements Unintended consequences.

24. WMP Body Worn Video Trial West Midlands Police Body Worn Video Trial Inspector Darren Henstock