Evidence relating to reporting a road traffic incident

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.037205

I note you seek access to the following information:

When reporting a road traffic incident to the MET at [1], it is mentioned that:

1. Do you have any evidence.
2. Video must cover a minute before and after.

What basis is used by the MET to justify this requirement / reject evidence that does not include a whole minute before the potential offense.

For instance, it's very easy to imagine a pedestrian noticing a traffic offense (say phone driving) and starting to record evidence. In this case the pedestrian wouldn't be able to start recording for a whole minute before the offense, and a video just a few seconds long might be more than enough to show a license plate and phone driving happening.

Is the guidance only meant to cover dashcam footage submitted by cyclists/drivers and that is much more likely to record continuously (and in that case should the form at [1] be updated to reflect this) whereas a pedestrian is more likely to only start recording once an offense is being committed?

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full. Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Q1 - What basis is used by the MET to justify this requirement / reject evidence that does not include a whole minute before the potential offense.

This is for guidance to all members of the public who submit footage that contain alleged offence; the minute before and after allows police decision makers to assess the circumstances leading up to the incident and the actions taken after. It provides the context to determine appropriate action is taken. However, each case is viewed on its own merit. If the footage is shorter it would not automatically be excluded. Furthermore, any footage must fully meet the evidential criteria required for police to progress enforcement action.

Q2- Is the guidance only meant to cover dashcam footage submitted by cyclists/drivers and that is much more likely to record continuously (and in that case should the form at [1] be updated to reflect this) whereas a pedestrian is more likely to only start recording once an offense is being committed.

This is for guidance to all members of the public. As stated previously, the footage before and after the incident provides valuable context for the consideration of police decision makers. The clipping of footage is required to reduce the demand on our decision makers, as trawling through continuous footage would adversely impact the processing capacity of the police teams and reduce our ability to respond to reports received.