Whilst carrying out surveillance are you an evidence gatherer or not?

Covert Munkey

Covert Munkey

Administrator
Following a recent conversation with another operative - who was also from a Police background we came across the evidence gathering question.

Are you an evidence gatherer or not? Considering the basic fundamental reason we carry out surveillance is to gather evidence and confirm or refute intelligence into fact what are you? Where do you come into the equation.

Ask yourself this, when carrying out surveillance do you actually take into consideration the rules of evidence and the subsequent consequences that this brings?

Do you keep a log? Do you complete statements in accordance with r V's TURNBALL? Are your video tapes labeled and handled as exhibits? When you print out pictures from a digital camera etc do you label them as exhibits and number them accordingly?

Is this necessary? Or is it all down to the clients preferences?

I Just thought I would start a debate within our new 'Legal corner' forum for our fellow surveillances operatives?

Looking forward to some views.

Regards,

CM
 
Covert Munkey said:
Following a recent conversation with another operative - who was also from a Police background we came across the evidence gathering question.

Are you an evidence gatherer or not? Considering the basic fundamental reason we carry out surveillance is to gather evidence and confirm or refute intelligence into fact what are you? Where do you come into the equation.

Ask yourself this, when carrying out surveillance do you actually take into consideration the rules of evidence and the subsequent consequences that this brings?

Do you keep a log? Do you complete statements in accordance with r V's TURNBALL? Are your video tapes labeled and handled as exhibits? When you print out pictures from a digital camera etc do you label them as exhibits and number them accordingly?

Is this necessary? Or is it all down to the clients preferences?

I Just thought I would start a debate within our new 'Legal corner' forum for our fellow surveillances operatives?

Looking forward to some views.

Regards,

CM
Click to expand...

Hmmm you raise a very interesting point on the first part i always create logs and have running commentary with my team, however the sd cards are handed over and none of the "normal procedures of evidence gathering (signing labeling etc) are carried out (or at least not by me the investigation and lawer side may be different but i never see that side as the company i work for seems tbe very us and them)

I am also not expected to carry out full RvTurnbull statements and neither is my team leader although i do keep up a continuous commentary, hmmm im off to ponder however i dont think an exact answer will present as with so much in this area grey is a predominant colour
 
I think it depends on the job, a lot of companies that require surveilance are doing so because they do not want the Police involved so therefore nothing will go to court. However, if you stick to the basic rules ie notes, statements handling of evidence ect then if the wheel comes off or the client changes their mind you have it available.

fbg
 
Surely anything that may end up in court should be handled within the rules of evidence. It would be horrid if an otherwise good case fell apart over a procedural error.

Ross
 
I certainly adhere to the CPIA rules regarding un-used material and each case file has all of my notes and research work in them....

....I always give tapes, DVDs and images sequential exhibit numbers in the report to the client but don't use exhibit labels as much of the work ends up going in the post so continuity is impossible.

I keep case progress notes for each job too and every phonecall/email between me and my clients is recorded as are the very important questions and answers that I ALWAYS ask prior to surveillance requests regarding any legal conditions that utilising my services might infringe;) Came in very usefull in a Court case recently whereby bail conditions were broken by employing me - I came out of the cross examination well simply because I could say on oath that I had asked the questions prior to accepting the instruction and the response was recorded on the Case Progress Notes....

Interesting to see though that my carefully laid out exhibits in a recent hand deleivered case were dis-regarded and the best shots "cherry picked" and re-numbered accordingly !!!

Go steady


Paul
 
The thread "video evidence" covers some of this.

Most of our work is for civil courts so things are a little bit more relaxed. I think I only consider the HRA when filming. Obviously keep the original tape, disc or dvd if it is the "first original" and we do not release that to the client. We keep extensive logs if someone else is doing the editing and report but upon disclosure the defending solicitors normally ask for them just to try and find something to get you on. I have never been asked about anything I may have seen that aint on the film so therefore logs dont have to so careful.

Very basic witness statements, "I took this video on such and such date and handed to A.Nother" are submited if it is going to court.

As for criminal court, often film criminal damage whilst sat up waiting and I have always handed the original or "first copy" to the Police and then its up to them.
 
A good one,

if you are employed or working on behalf of a public authority (local council, etc) I would imagine it would ALL come into play, CPIA, ECHR and possibly RIPA (though that should be sorted out above the operator)

If not, I would imagine it is best practice to carry on as if you were (if that makes sense, I've not had enough booze yet to be fully lucid)
 
R v Turnbull relates to case law concerning identification of an individual by a witness the ADVOCATE guidance will have an influence on a section 9 statement should the contents be brought before a court. Commercial Surveillance is mainly the observation of an identified subject the witnesses in this instance are the surveillance operatives! who will normally have seen photographs video or had the subject physically identified to them by other operatives so there is not usually any Turnbull issues...
However I agree private sector/commercial surveillance logs are more biased towards the clients requirements. The subject is normally identified in advance and the log relates to that individual. I normally keep a running log of the days events, at the debrief I will collate images and recordings captured by team members along with affidavit numbers of relevant images, recordings. Once the team is happy with the chronology errors and admissions etc all squared away. I will email a sitrep with a digital log of the days events cross referenced with images. To the client/ops manager with a further copy going to a large internet based server. The server copy is in effect my master copy all electronically recorded date time stamped etc should the integrity ever be questioned!!. If working for a company who supply all the recording media I sent the lot back to them for storage/collating/ destroying as they see fit!
The client ultimately calls the shots!
 
An aside but relevant.

Always always always keep your original material yourself, supply only full (silver) copies to the tasking agency or edited (bronze) copies as required. Long after a covert investigation had finished I was subject to enquiry about a leak to the media, and was able to prove I had no images corresponding with those in the national papers, thus emerging with honour. If I had no control it would have been the work of seconds for someone to re-label some of my images, or insert those used my the media.

I suspect the enquiry was actually launched by the whistle-blower (within the tasking agency) anyway.
 
CM, For the purpose of directed survelliance R v Johnson is applicable in this instance as without this the information acquired is only intelligence. R v Johnson introduces continuity to the survelliance process as any information obtained could be deemed inadmissable in court.

This case law is more paramount than A.D.V.O.K.A.T.E as it is a legal process so evidence can be exhibited.

Cheers
 
In short NO,

an Evidence gatherer is a title given to a uniform officer who carries out overt surveillance on behalf of the police. They are governed by some of RIPA and rules on evidence, however do not require the same authorities for surveillance as the are not covert or intrusive.

Covert surveillance uses means which may occasionally cause collateral intrusion into the private lives of the subjects or others, but is done without their knowledge. Evidence gatherers should not be carrying out covert work, this is only to be completed by level 1 or 2 trained operators.
 
I disagree with JomRoss8, when conducting covert surveillance one of the objectives may be to collate evidence of wrongdoing, using a combination of many methods, as such the operative is in the business of evidence gathering.

regards
 
I'm not really convinced that labels such as 'evidence gatherer' really mean anything here. My own view is that, subject to a degree of common sense being applied, the role of the surveillance operative is to gather information. Surely, it makes sense to gather that precious information in such a manner as not to preclude it from being used as widely as necessary.

Good practice is good practice just as good tradecraft is good tradecraft. It matters not whether you conduct your surveillance for a public or private sector client.
 
Mansonross said:
Surely anything that may end up in court should be handled within the rules of evidence. It would be horrid if an otherwise good case fell apart over a procedural error.

Ross
Click to expand...

Got it in one.

EVERYTHING should be treated as such, it's not difficult, if there is enough interest I could do a exhibits handling Word doc.

It really is very simple, but if you cannot show total integrity with the items (exhibits) you are offering in evidence you are Fecked
 
ALCON:

In the private sector, if the surveillance is being conducted as part of an investigation, my view is that one should perform the surveillance according to the rules/procedures of evidence collection and maintain proper evidentiary chain of custody, as if the matter is to go to court. This keeps all options open for the investigator's client/employer.

At the start of the surveillance, the client/employer may not yet have decided if the matter is to go to court. As the investigation progresses, the client/employer could change his mind on the need to go to court. Therefore, the investigator should keep all options open for his client/employer.

If the investigator's client/employer decides to take the matter to court, and if the investigator followed the rules and procedures of evidence collection and custody, then the evidence collected by the surveillance can be legally admissible and used in court proceedings. If the investigator's client/employer decides not to take it to court, then no harm has been done by having followed the rules/procedures of evidence collection and custody.

If the rules and procedures of evidence collection and custody are not followed, this prevents the results of the surveillance from being used in court, ruling out that option for the investigator's client/employer.

In the public sector, whether or not the rules and procedures of evidence collection and custody are followed depends on:

- the remit of the government agency performing the surveillance;
- the purpose of the surveillance; and
- the government agency's policy on investigations and surveillance.

If the surveillance is being done only for intelligence or security reasons, with no intention of ever going to court, then the public sector agency need not follow the rules and proedures of evidence collection and custody. If the surveillance is being done for law enforcement purposes, with a view to eventual prosecution of the subject, then the rules and procedures of evidence collection and chain of custody are mandatory.


Regards,

Dave
 
Last edited:
I think we're losing the plot here.

99% of the time the subject decides if you are seeing int or evidence.

A. He has 100 visitors to his flat but no observed offences = intelligence

B. He has 15 visitors to his flat when a transaction is made and photographed / videoed = evidence
 
conwy said:
I disagree with JomRoss8, when conducting covert surveillance one of the objectives may be to collate evidence of wrongdoing, using a combination of many methods, as such the operative is in the business of evidence gathering.

regards
Click to expand...

The problem and confusion is with the title 'evidence gatherer' this is a role given to a police officer as described in uniform and overtly gathering evidence of offences or information to help police enquiries. This is not and never has been covert surveillance or a role for a surveillance trained officer. A person who is an evidence gatherer is not a covert surveillance operative, but does use the same rules of evidence.

As a covert operator, you may 'gather evidence' but you are NOT an evidence gatherer. You are a surveillance officer carrying out a covert and possibly intrusive role.
 
JimRoss8 said:
The problem and confusion is with the title 'evidence gatherer' this is a role given to a police officer as described in uniform and overtly gathering evidence of offences or information to help police enquiries. This is not and never has been covert surveillance or a role for a surveillance trained officer. A person who is an evidence gatherer is not a covert surveillance operative, but does use the same rules of evidence.

As a covert operator, you may 'gather evidence' but you are NOT an evidence gatherer. You are a surveillance officer carrying out a covert and possibly intrusive role.
Click to expand...

If you gather evidence, how are you not an evidence gatherer?!?! We are not talking about a specific role which a police force has made up, this is based around whether someone conducting surveillance (whether covertly or overtly) is an evidence gatherer or not.

It's not just police officers who gather evidence, and here's an example:

A civilian company employs a private investigator to covertly watch their employees whom they suspect are comitting either a criminal offence or a health & safety issue. The investigator employs whatever means necessary to record the activities of the employees, and therefore is gathering evidence to support the investigation. The investigator is therefore an evidence gatherer.
 
Some very good points made. I just wondered how many people are using SMRs or
a similar record with a view to keeping non evidential material off the Surveillance Log.

My view is that if the evidence is likely to go anywhere near a trial or hearing the best method is to be as ACPO and ECHR compliant as possible. Beware of clients
who have seen too many episodes of a Touch of Frost and The Bill, who later, when
it all falls out of bed, turn to you and raise their eyebrows. Your reputation is at stake on all your jobs.

Regards and good luck................Nippy
 
Hopefully in todays day and age most companies worth their salt (and one-man-bands for that matter) are keeping a paper trail and labeling exhibits, including keeping a log for a conventianal surveillance op or just a casefile diary of some sort.
 
Back
Top