Over-observed? What is the quality of CCTV in this new digital legal world?

Abstract

Poor quality CCTV evidence requires a witness to make an identification of the suspect. Good quality CCTV images are often left to the jury, who are unfamiliar with the face. Psychological research has demonstrated that identification procedures for both known and previously unknown suspects should be very different. A visual comparison of high quality imagery may suggest that a more reliable decision regarding identity will be made. However, studies indicate that when an assailant is unknown, identification is poor even when the image is of high quality, regardless of format. As such, research has demonstrated that recognizing or matching unfamiliar faces even in optimal conditions is an extremely error prone process. This paper examines the current legal framework for identification from imagery in the light of psychological research. Incorrect identifications may not necessarily be safeguarded against in some situations, although further research is needed to elucidate reliable identification methods for criminal prosecutions.

Notes

1 House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Digital Images as Evidence, 5th Report: Session 1997–98, HL paper 64, HMSO, London, 21 February 1998.

2 Eg E F Loftus ‘Leading questions and the eyewitness report’, Cognitive Psychology Vol 7, pp 560–572, 1979; B L Cutler and S D Penrod Mistaken Identification: Eyewitnesses, Psychology and the Law Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995.

3 R Kemp, N Towell and G Pike ‘When seeing should not be believing: photographs, credit cards and fraud’ Applied Cognitive Psychology Vol 11, pp 211–222, 1997.

4 V Bruce, Z Henderson, K Greenwood, P J B Hancock, A M Burton and P Miller ‘Verification of face identities from images captured on video’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied Vol 5, pp 331–338, 1999.

5 Z Henderson, V Bruce and A M Burton ‘Matching the faces of robbers captured on video’ Applied Cognitive Psychology Vol 15, pp 445–464, 2001.

6 A M Burton, S Wilson, M Cowan and V Bruce ‘Face recognition in poor quality video: evidence from security surveillance’ Psychological Science Vol 10, pp 243–248, 1999.

7 V Bruce, Z Henderson, C Newman and A M Burton ‘Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied Vol 7, No 3, pp 207–218, 2001.

8 G Davies and S Thassen ‘Closed-circuit television: how effective an identification aid?’ British Journal of Psychology Vol 91, pp 411–426, 2000.

9 Burton et al, op cit, note 6.

10 H D Ellis, J W Shepherd and G M Davies ‘Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: some implications for theories of face recognition’ Perception Vol 8, pp 431–439, 1979.

11 A W Young, D C Hay, K H McWeeney, B M Flude and A W Ellis ‘Matching familiar and unfamiliar faces on internal and external trials’ Perception Vol 14, pp 737–746, 1985; R Clutterbuck and R A Johnson ‘Exploring levels of face familiarity by using an indirect face-matching measure’ Perception Vol 31, pp 985–994, 2002.

12 Bruce et al, op cit, note 4.

13 L Bonner, A M Burton and V Bruce ‘Getting to know you: how we learn new faces’ Visual Cognition Vol 10, No 5, pp 527–536, 2003.

14 C O'Donnell and V Bruce ‘Familiarisation with faces selectively enhances sensitivity to changes made to the eyes’ Perception Vol 30, pp 755–764, 2001.

15 P J B Hancock, V Bruce and A M Burton ‘Recognition of unfamiliar faces’ Trends in Cognitive Science Vol 4, pp 330–337, 2000.

16 V Bruce and A W Young ‘Understanding face recognition’ British Journal of Psychology Vol 77, pp 305–327, 1986.

17 Attorney General's Reference 2 of 2002 2003 1 Crim App R 21.

18 Bruce & Young op cit, note 16; Kemp et al, op cit, note 3; Bruce et al, op cit, note 4; Henderson et al, op cit, note 5; Hancock, Bruce & Burton, op cit, note 15.

19 Bruce & Young, op cit, note 16; Burton et al, op cit, note 6; Bruce et al, op cit, note 7.

20 Bruce & Young, op cit, note 16.

21 Bonner et al, op cit, note 13.

22 Bruce & Young, op cit, note 16.

23 Bonner et al, op cit, note 13.

24 Burton et al, op cit, note 6.

25 Bonner et al, op cit, note 13.