Man wins case against TV Licencing Authority

System

roddydogs wrote: »

How would a "Frozen Image" prove anything? Its cost him £18,000 enough to buy how many years of a proper license?

You mean the 'frozen image' that even their own inspector stated was not there.

Surely there is now a case for Capita to be investigated for tampering with evidence

Kurtis_Blue

!!!!!! wrote: »

You mean the 'frozen image' that even their own inspector stated was not there.

Surely there is now a case for Capita to be investigated for tampering with evidence

He never said it wasnt there.

Buzby

There's more to this than meets the eye. Video evidence in criminal trials (like this one) requires a strict set of standards, it is not sufficient for a video tape (or file) to exist and be taken as verifiable proof or corroboration.

Any old DVR or PVR can record video, but not in a proof-positive way, it may be viewed by the judge if not challenged by the defence, or with the caveat that there is no security of the chain of evidence to prevent tampering. There has to be watermark and time-code (both need not be visible within the image, but require to be retrievable so this does not become an issue).

It would have been the CPS/PF who would bring the case based on the evidence presented to them, so if Crapita were playing fast and loose with evidence, it would be up to the prosecutor to question the evidence provided and act on any suggestion of improprieties or tampering).