From Go-Pro footage to dash cams, 'Mr Technicality' - top lawyer Richard Freeman - lays down the law on video vigilantes.

An increasing number of drivers are being reported to the police for alleged offences by fellow road users in cars with dash cams, or cyclists with Go-Pros fitted to their helmets. These allegations include use of mobile phones, red light contraventions and careless and dangerous driving. Even pedestrians are becoming vigilantes by using their mobile phones to film offending vehicles or photographing the vehicle to secure the details of its number plate. The driver is often oblivious to the fact that they have been caught on camera until they receive a knock on their door from the police. At times they have been confronted by the vigilante.

This frequently provokes a hostile response from the errant driver, sometimes leading to other offences being committed of a typical road rage nature. Prior to such technological advances the police would be slow to become involved in such allegations made by a civilian witness due to the lack of corroborated evidence. It would come down to one person's word against another, which wouldn't stand up in court. Now, the video footage can be viewed by the police, then downloaded in a secure format that can be saved and played in court.

This has come about as a consequence of a recent case in which a rape victim denied consenting to sexual acts. A video was taken by a co-accused of the sexual act which, it was suggested by the defence, showed her consent. The victim disputed this on the basis that she was too intoxicated to give her consent which would not necessarily be evident from the video. The question for the appeal court was to what extent the judge or jury could decide for themselves what the images depict. It was held that they could form their own view of what was taking place on the video and accordingly they did not need to consider the video evidence through the evidence of witnesses.

Previously, the judge, if he or she is sitting alone, or the jury, were not permitted to form their own opinion of what they observed on a video or photograph. They had to listen to the evidence of a witness about what they could see on the video. A jury, for example, could not take the video into the jury room to view it again, to decide what they made of it. However, the change in the law now means that for proof of the driving offence all the prosecution has to do is cite the vigilante to court and play the video in court. Even if the vigilante is not able to identify the driver in court, it won’t halt the prosecution. When the police begin their investigation they will make a legal requirement of the registered keeper of the car to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. It is an offence for the keeper of a vehicle not to provide that information (unless certain circumstances apply) and the police will usually secure that information and will give evidence of who that is in court.

So a cautionary tale when driving - smile, you never know when you might be on You’ve Been Framed!

Click HERE if you wish to view the Article on the GlasgowLive.co.uk website.