FILM AS EVIDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 18, 20 July 1935, Page 26

FILM AS EVIDENCE

IS IT ADMISSIBLE ?

AN ENGLISH CASE

Should a cinematograph film be accepted as evidence against an accused man or woman? This problem in crime detection, which has been argued on and off lor yeEfrs, has again been revived following the conviction of a number of men at Chesterfield in connection with street betting. A film was shown in support of the charges, says the "Daily Express." Experiments in this connection have been made by Scotland Yard experts over a number of years, and the science of cinematography is taught at the new Police College at Hendon. In fact, it was a Scotland Yard officer, ex-Detec-tive-Inspector Leach, who first used a cinema film in a court to help prove a case of theft. Scotland Yard has not yet made up its' mind about films. Everyone knows how easy it is for film producers to' "fake" the most amazing scenes, and it is obvious that, interminable arguments might follow the'production of a film of an alleged crime as the principal "witness." . It is agreed that as a supporting "witness" a film showing the perpetration of a crime would be invaluable. Experienced officers argue, however, that the production of a film in any big case at present would give clever counsel tremendous opportunities in cross-examination. They point out that even the fingerprint system, which is practically infallible, is attacked from time to time by eminent counsel. "How much more easy it would be," argued an ex-member of the "Big Five," "to convince a jury that a film could be faked. Every man and woman in this country, potential jurors, has had an obvious proof of the ease with which a film can be faked. "They have even seen pictures revealing how faked effects are achieved. It is obvious, therefore, that some considerable doubt might be left in the minds of a juryman who was not quite convinced of the guilt of an accused person by the ordinary evidence. "Police officers, photographers, and the men responsible for developing the films might go into a witness-box and swear that a film was taken under the s'traightest possible conditions, and that it/Was developed and printed under conditions which would make tamper^ ing with it impossible—but is' that enough? "There is no doubt that in the future films will be used more and more by {he detective force of this country, but they will be used for explanatory work rather than as a "principal witness." COURT AS "CINEMA." , In the case at Chesterfield, which has raised the problem, thirty-nine men appeared on fifty summonses for loitering in or frequenting the market place for the purpose of betting. The film, which was 300 feet long, was taken by a police constable with a special cine-camera, and was developed in London. It was shown twice during a police court session lasting from 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., the court being darkened for the purpose by drawing the blinds. The projecting machine was mounted on a board on top of the dock rails, and the screen, four' feet square, was placed on a wall to the right of the Magistrates. One constable worked the cinematograph, while another officer explained the scenes. The defendants were given seats round the screen. One of them exclaimed: "This is the first time I have had a front seat free of charge." The picture was in four sections, and, when first run at the customary speed, took fifteen minutes to show. Later, as a number of the defendants claimed they were not in .the picture, it was run through in "slow motion," and stopped several times at the request;of the defendants. Then some of them agreed that-the, camera h"ad caught them. Incidents such as "paying out," receiving slips, people looking through ;■ field glasses, and "runners" on bicycles were shown. The final scene showed the arrest of the men and their conveyance in patrol vans to the police station. Considering.that the pictures were taken from a place of concealment seventy-five yards away in dull weather they showed up remarkably clearly. The defendants laughed heartily at some of the incidents, and they had to be repressed.. , , , Mr T. Wells, Chief Constable, told the Bench that the market place had been used on a large scale for betting, and bookmakers and others always produced an alibi when charged. He therefore, decided to combat this by'securing a "faithful record." Nine police officers gave evidence in support of the case. MAGISTRATES CONVINCED. ' Mr. G. Bradley, defending two men, described the film as "a dangerous precedent." He claimed it was not evidence of betting transactions because it did not show that either money or slips were passed. The Court, he added, was only concerned with direct facts. Mr. G. Swarm, also defending, stated the film might disclose suspicious actions by defendants, but that was not evidence of loitering or betting. Twenty-five of the men were discharged, five were bound over, and fines totalling £91 were imposed in the other cases. All those convicted were ordered to pay. costs. The Mayor, Alderman H. Varley, remarked that the proceedings had been most unsavoury for the Magistrates. He added: "The betting laws are absurd. I can telephone, a £1 bet and the .police cannot touch me, but if I lay a 6d bet in the street! am liable to prosecution." The Mayor congratulated Chief Constable Wells on the initiative and enterprise he had shown. The film, he said, may not have been satisfactory to defendants, but it had been convincing to the Magistrates.

The election of officers of the Mount Cook Home and School Association for the ensuing year resulted as follows: President, Mr. Grant; vice-president, Mr. Edward; secretary, Mrs. Vardey; treasurer, Mrs. Latham; trustees, Mesdames Stevens and Grant; auditor, Mr. Stevens;, executive, Mesdames Chudlcy, ■Hostler, Edwards, and. Mr. Harker,