Police Commissioner Dr Kevin Blake has stated that the investment in body worn cameras is far from a superficial gesture.

He says it’s a substantive move towards building a stronger, more transparent relationship with the public.

There have been calls especially from the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom) for cops on operations to use body worn cameras.

Commenting on the issue in the latest force orders, it was noted that the introduction and strategic implementation of body worn cameras signal a commitment to accountability as well as the values of transparency and fairness.

Recognizing the challenges that come with implementing new technology, Dr Blake acknowledged both the progress and the hurdles in the JCF’s journey with body worn cameras.

He noted that some years ago the police began implementing body worn cameras in some stations, however limited attention was paid to the infrastructure necessary to support the cameras’ data.

In response to these initial missteps, the JCF has made significant investments in building a robust infrastructure that can support the long-term use of body worn cameras.

The commissioner said over $2 billion has been spent to enhance the infrastructure, over the last 3 years.

This investment, he explained, addresses issues such as network capacity, storage, and data management—critical components for any successful body worn cameras programme.

Dr Blake also addressed the importance of a formal body worn cameras policy and officer training programme within the JCF in the technology’s use.

He noted that “there is a policy that governs use of body worn cameras and reminded officers, that failing to adhere to this policy can have serious repercussions.

The JCF said this message underscores its understanding that body worn cameras are not merely cameras, but a tool that when used responsibly, can protect both the public and officers by providing an objective record of police encounters.

He also reacted to to criticism from the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom) about instances where officers failed to activate their body worn cameras during planned operations, affecting Indecom’s ability to investigate certain police-involved shootings.

Dr Blake acknowledged that there are challenges to the full and optimal adoption of body worn cameras.

He noted that the four cases cited by Indecom represent “less than 1% of the number of encounters (non-fatal and non-injurious) that take place each day.”

The JCF stated that while every lapse in body worn cameras usage is significant, the commissioner’s transparency about these incidents illustrates that the JCF is listening to criticism and is committed to addressing gaps in adherence.

Meantime, the commissioner has appealed to his colleagues to embrace the use of body worn cameras, because failing to do so can lead to serious consequences.

Its noted that body worn cameras serve as an invaluable tool in protecting officers from false allegations, providing an objective account of incidents that might otherwise be subject to interpretation.