Sending in video evidence

There have been a few occasions over the years when people have brought in a DVD to demonstrate one issue or another, and as yet I’ve never been persuaded that it would be worth adding to the evidence overall.

Nowadays of course it’s a simple thing to email a video clip to your welfare rights officer to help make a point.

If I agreed that it was worth sending in, in practical terms what would be the best way to do this?

I could email it to HMCTS, but I doubt they’d be too keen to copy it to DVD or whatever the courts would require.  Wouldn’t be too keen to do this myself, come to that.

Has anyone got experience of this?

Many many thanks.

I think the standard line is to ask them what format they want it in? They usually want a DVD but I have a vague recall of a recent UT decision which ruled that ruling something out that could easily be viewed on a smartphone or tablet by all concerned would be an error of law. Sorry I can’t be more specific than that.

On the rare occasions I have submitted video evidence I have not asked. I have sent in 4x DVD copies for TS to distribute. The bigger issue is generally getting the processes in place to ensure that on the date of any hearing a DVD player is in place in the hearing room and that it has actually been tested with the DVD in question. Crucial as you’re looking at an adjournment if any attending PO hasn’t seen the evidence. Equally crucial as the turnover in clerks means that such an obvious matter is simply never even thought about in advance of the hearing.

As a backup I have produced my iPad; propped it on the desk and pointed out that as the whole panel will of course have made strenuous efforts to ensure that they viewed the video evidence well in advance of the hearing on the DVDs I supplied they will be able to confirm to the PO that what is being viewed has not been doctored in any way. Cue much shifting in seats from all concerned and an actual “Harrumph!”. Five minute adjournment and then it was admitted. PO and I of course knew well enough that the panel were in a horrendous position as none of them had viewed it at all.

EDIT: I was subsequently reminded that they are in fact not allowed to view it in advance. Whilst I understand the logic for this it does mean you are entirely at the mercy of a clerk taking your DVD and checking it on a player and ensuring that that self same player appears in a hearing room. An unlikely sequence of events I’m sure you’ll agree,

So, in summary, send it in as a DVD; assure them it has been tested on a variety of machines and advise that you will of course be asking for a postponement if you attend on the day to find no player there. As an alternative you’ll be able to present it on the clients phone etc. which they will of course be able to verify as untampered because they will have played the DVD in advance of the hearing :)

Many thanks for this, I couldn’t have hoped for a more illuminating response.

Happily my inner technophobe has prevented me from viewing the latest video yet, but perhaps it will be the one to test out video submission procedure.

Give in to your inner technophobe Rob. There is great fun to be had looking at the many pathetic and hopelessly transparent ways in which the DWP, first to shout from the rooftops about unfair skewing of evidence, doctor video evidence.

My personal fave was the client whose video purported to show them walking 300m. It was not rocket science to show that “somebody” had taken 1 long shot of the claimant walking 75m whilst someone else had shot the same walk from a different angle. The video was put together as angle 1 (colour - walking 75m) followed by angle 2 (black and white - walking the same 75m - the landmarks we could show repeating were hilarious “look - the same dog poo next to the same bin next to the same kerb with a drop - WHAT a coincidence!”). They were followed by angle 1 (repeated but transferred into black and white in a pathetic attempt to make it look like a third angle and a third 75m) and angle 2 repeated (but converted to colour presumably because we’d be too stupid to notice).

I personally think someone should have been dismissed and prosecuted for that but there you go.

Not much changes really. Currently dealing with a case in which an IUC was used to compel an alcoholic, paranoid schizophrenic into paying back 3 overpayments and 3 admin. penalties because they had enough evidence to prosecute otherwise. The 20 plus pages show no such thing and worse still strongly suggest that key questions were pursued before entering the interview room and never put on tape. “You must have been working to accrue that capital. How else could you do it?”. The relevant parties have yet to explain how they managed to get through 20 pages plus of interview and yet that question never came up in the interview!!!