Australian police are being asked to do more with less. More criminals, new laws, new terror threats and increasingly sophisticated crimes are to be pursued with a lean budget and not enough officers. Police resources therefore need to be targeted effectively, and closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras can help.
CCTV cameras broaden the surveillance capabilities of police. A camera is like having another officer on the beat, patrolling problem areas, deterring potential criminals, and alerting operators in a nearby control room of crimes as they occur. Police officers can then commit resources to that location.
Cameras make the public feel safer, and this is of real benefit to restaurants, bars and other small businesses in areas troubled by crime. CCTV can also increase courts’ efficiency, by providing clinching evidence that leads to more guilty pleas and fewer contested trials.
To be successful, there must be enough cameras to cover the given area; the cameras must be installed with unobstructed views; operators must be able to communicate quickly with patrolling police officers; known problem areas should be targeted; and the use of surveillance cameras should be part of a broader law enforcement scheme. Given these five conditions, CCTV has proven to help reduce crime.
Although effective, CCTV may nonetheless be undesirable. The civil liberty concerns surrounding CCTV are serious. Personal privacy is integral to the values of a liberal democracy. But a number of laws in Australia – State and Commonwealth – already regulate surveillance and protect the interest of privacy. The police can watch people in public spaces without any legal restraint, but they are restricted from entering and searching certain premises without a warrant. Similar restrictions apply to CCTV.
Where no restrictions apply, common law duties of confidence are owed if someone, even inadvertently, videos without consent another’s act that is deemed ‘private’ for the purposes of the law. Judges enjoy a large amount of flexibility in deciding these cases.
Further CCTV regulation is unnecessary. For example, the NSW Law Reform Commission is considering a proposal that all camera footage older than 21 days should be destroyed. It would be devastating for law enforcement, police efficiency, courts’ efficiency and public perceptions of safety if useful evidence had to be destroyed – all the more so since CCTV is already governed by statutory and common law restrictions that protect the interest of privacy.
Caspar Conde is a Research Assistant at The Centre for Independent Studies.