واخيرا الشرطة الهندية تلقي القبض على مفجر جيرمان بيكريafter scanning the CCTV

Quote: Court rules CCTV evidence valid A man who sought to halt his trial because CCTV footage of his alleged crime is no longer available has lost his application after a High Court judge ruled that evidence from a Garda who was monitoring the CCTV cameras at the time is admissible. Mr Justice John Hedigan said a garda viewing an incident on CCTV is akin to someone looking through binoculars or through “a special window.” He was dismissing proceedings by John Stirling, Moorefield Drive, Clondalkin, Dublin, who is charged with criminal damage and public order offences arising out of an alleged incident at Aston Quay, Dublin, in the early hours of March 3rd, 2009. It is claimed a garda monitoring the Pearse Street station CCTV saw a group of young people allegedly kicking a telephone box and various windows and communicated what he saw to officers on the ground who subsequently arrested Mr Stirling in the Temple Bar area. After a District Court judge refused an application to dismiss the charges against Mr Stirling on grounds the CCTV footage was no longer available, Mr Stirling brought his High Court judicial review proceedings. In his judgment, Mr Justice Hedigan said it was unfortunate the CCTV footage was no longer available. The loss of the footage should not have occurred and was “indicative of a certain inefficiency on the part of gardaí” over the proper storage of this type of evidence. he said. It was imperative procedures be “tightened up”. However, the missing footage was not fatal to this case which could not be regarded as a usual “missing evidence” matter, he said. By means of elaborate technology now deployed in Dublin, it was possible for gardaí to see “far beyond the field of vision to which they would normally be limited” as if they were looking through “a special window or through binoculars.” The garda monitoring the cameras could give evidence in the trial and could be questioned about the accuracy of his recall, acuity of his view, quality of the picture and his opportunity to observe, the judge said. A trial judge could ask to see an example of similar footage and would have to ensure the trial was conducted in a constitutional manner, he added.