Body camera SOJP policy

​​Request ​​789809227

A copy of the policy on body worn cameras held by SOJP.

Response

Please find attached to this response, the States of Jersey Police (SoJP) Body Worn Video Policy. This policy contains limited sensitive operational data which has been redacted, Article 42 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

FOI 789809227 Body Worn Video Policy_Redacted.pdf​

Article applied

Article 42 - Law enforcement

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice –

(a) the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

Article 42 is a qualified exemption; there is a requirement to undertake a public interest test. Public disclosure of the design requirements of such weapons would assist potential criminals if planning on committing similar crime. Whilst we appreciate that members of the public might be interested to know such details, we have concluded that the public interest, i.e. the need to protect public safety, is best secured by not disclosing such details.

Prejudice Test

The redacted sections contain technical, operational, and system-level information that could be exploited to compromise policing processes. This includes identifiable details about BWV evidence-handling systems, upload behaviours, device storage and docking arrangements, and other internal mechanisms governing how BWV data is managed. Disclosure of such information would expose operational vulnerabilities that could be targeted through cyber-attacks or exploited to bypass or interfere with BWV recording and secure evidence-handling procedures.

The material also references internal security frameworks, evidential workflows, and system-level safeguards used within the States of Jersey Police. Revealing these processes would undermine the integrity of policing systems and could enable individuals to frustrate investigations, manipulate operational workflows, or access sensitive or third-party data inappropriately.

Accordingly, releasing this information would be likely to prejudice both ongoing and future policing activity by weakening system security, compromising evidential reliability, and impairing the effective prevention and detection of crime.

Public Interest Test

There is a clear public interest in understanding how Body Worn Video (BWV) is used by the States of Jersey Police, particularly as it relates to transparency, accountability, and the fair treatment of the public. BWV contributes to evidential accuracy, supports complaints handling, and helps maintain public confidence in policing practices.

However, the redacted material contains sensitive operational and system-level information, including internal evidence-handling processes, device activation behaviours, docking and storage procedures, and technical safeguards governing how BWV footage is processed, protected, and reviewed. Disclosure of such information would expose policing systems and operational workflows to unnecessary risk, including the possibility of interference with BWV recording, attempts to circumvent evidential capture, or exploitation of system vulnerabilities.

Releasing this information would not enhance public understanding of BWV use in a meaningful way; instead, it would undermine the secure management of BWV evidence and diminish the safeguards designed to protect both operational integrity and sensitive third-party data, particularly in high-risk areas such as custody, hospitals, major incidents, and the Emergency Services Control Centre.

Balancing these factors, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Protecting the security and reliability of BWV systems, and ensuring the continued effectiveness of policing operations, is essential to the wider public good.

Therefore, the public interest favours withholding the redacted information.