Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9506800411 |
| Published date | 01 October 1995 |
| Author | Rob R. Jerrard |
| Date | 01 October 1995 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
ROB R. JERRARD, LLB, LLM
Legal Correspondent
for
The Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Admitting Videotape Evidence
R. v. Clare; R. v. Peach
(1995) 159 JP 412 Court of Appeal
A police constable who studied video recordings some 40 times of a brief
incident which was the aftermath of a football match in September 1991,
was an expert ad hoc in the traditional category of those qualified to give
opinionevidenceand had special knowledge that the court did not possess,
so that his evidence identifying two men engaged in violent disorder was
properly admissible. The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing
appeals by Clare, and Peach, of violent disorder contrary to s.2 of the
Public Order Act 1986.
The Lord ChiefJustice, giving the judgmentof the court, said that Clare
and Peach were West Bromwich Albion supporters. After the match at
Bolton, a brief fracas flared up between supporters of the two clubs
amounting to violent disorder. The incident was brief and recorded in
black and white by three video cameras affixed to buildings nearby.
The Crown relied on black and white video recording. The incidentwas
brief and there were many supporters and other members of the public
milling about and creating aconfused scene; what was actually being done
and who was doing it could only be discerned by close study.
PC Fitzpatrick had studied the film closely and analytically. He,
together with a colleague, had filmed supporters in good quality colour
arriving at the football ground, when they were in the stadium and as they
left. PC Fitzpatrick had viewed the recording of the incident about 40
times. He had been able to examine it in slow motion, frame by frame,
rewinding and playing as frequently as he needed. By so studying the film
he was able to follow the movements
of
individuals and see what actions
they took. By comparing the individuals performing violent acts with the
colour pictures, he claimed to be able to identify not only the violent acts
in the street but who was committing them.
The Crown sought to adduce his evidence in order to elucidate for the
benefit of the jury what could be seen on the video recording. Neither
appellant gave evidence. The main ground of appeal related to PC
Fitzpatrick's evidence. He did notknow Clare and Peach before that day.
His Lordship considered R. v. Leaney (1987) 38 CCC 3d 263; R. v.
Steele (1992) SLT 847; and R. v. Howe (1983) I NZLR 618 and said that
the phrase from Howe "expert ad hoc" sought to put witnesses like PC
Fitzpatrick into the traditional category of those qualified to give expert
opinion evidence. Whetheror not the tag was appropriate, their Lordships
were clearly of the view that PC Fitzpatrick had, as stated in Leaney
"special knowledge that the court did not possess". Accordingly, it was
368 The Police Journal October 1995
To continue reading
Request your trial