Whenever the state seeks to increase its power, or reach into our lives, there should be skepticism. That is very much the principle on which Gript Media operates: our view is that the role of the press in a democracy should be to interrogate state power and question those who would seek to increase it, because the state is already massively powerful compared to the individual. In that respect, you’ll tend to read here articles that are usually hostile or questioning about various state initiatives to increase its power, whether that be further restrictions on vaping, hate speech laws, new speed limits, or whatever.
In the case of fitting the Gardai with body cameras, though, it seems to me that such concerns are misplaced.
The Gardai are, at first principles, the enforcement arm of the state. Their job is to enforce the laws and strike fear into people that if they do not obey the law, consequences will ensue. That is often flipped around to the idea that the Gardai exist to “protect the public” – but that is not really the full truth.
The Gardai exist to protect the public and the state from other members of the public. They do not exist to protect you from the Government. If you’re getting mistreated by the state, good luck calling the cops, in most instances.
It is precisely because of this contradiction that liberal western societies invented the notion of an independent judiciary and courts, who are supposed to protect you from the Gardai. That’s their job in criminal matters: If we did not have courts, we could simply take the word of the Gardai and lock people up at their whims. Courts exist to defend you from that and give you the chance to prove the state wrong. It is why an independent judiciary is vital, and should always be sustained.
It is in that context that your correspondent thinks that Garda Bodycams are a very good idea, because on balance they should protect the public more than they protect the Gardai.
Consider the situation that might arise in the case where there is a dispute in the version of a particular event between the cops on the one hand and a suspected criminal in another: The Garda says the defendant resisted arrest and was abusive. The defendant, with six previous convictions, says this is untrue.
Who is the jury more likely to believe? Who is the court more likely to side with? A Garda, or a convicted criminal. There may well be cases where perceptions of relative trust benefit the Gardai in such disputes.
Garda bodycams flip that script. If they are used correctly, then the dispute should no longer exist, because the video footage will confirm the truth either way. And if for some reason the bodycams are switched off, or not used, then that might well lead a juror to wonder why that might have been the case, and side more with a defendant.
Opponents of bodycams apparently have concerns about privacy and people being recorded without their consent. Yet those people have to deal with the established fact that CCTV cameras exist, and are in use across the jurisdiction both by the state, and by private companies and individuals. They serve the same purpose. They record people, always without consent. All you get, as a citizen, is a sign up to warn you that CCTV is in use.
There’s no particular difference of principle when it comes to garda bodycams – they are simply CCTV cameras made mobile by being attached to members of the force.
Gript Media is aware of at least one ongoing criminal case in which our footage has been sought by lawyers for a criminal defendant in relation to charges laid against them by Gardai. Without getting into the specifics of that case, it involves a protestor at an event who believes that he is being unjustly charged by the Gardai with a criminal act, and believes that our footage recorded incidentally at the event may well exonerate him.
Whether it ultimately does, or does not, it seems reasonably clear to me that this person’s defence – or a part of it – relies on his having the good luck that our cameras may have captured something vital to his defence. Had our crew not been present, then that footage would not exist, and he would not be able to use it in his defence. It would be his word versus that of the Gardai.
Looked at that way, Garda Bodycams are indeed a civil liberties issue, but not in the way people are talking about it being. Those cameras should have the effect of making every Garda more accountable in their interactions with the public. They should be a check on state power, rather than an expansion of it.
Those who care about their own civil liberties, and keeping the power of the state in check, should support this initiative.