The Tribune

THE Minister of National Security, Wayne Munroe, was to allow the family of the young man shot dead by police officers to view camera footage of the incident last night.

After the shooting last week, this column pointed out the curious double standard of who gets to see footage after a police shooting.

The guidance described previously is that when footage can be considered evidence, it becomes property of the coroner.

However, Mr Munroe has previously spoken of having viewed video footage in a police-involved shooting. In January of last year, when a marine was shot dead by police, Mr Munroe said that video footage was consistent with accounts of officers in the shooting.

Given that this footage should apparently have been in the hands of the coroner, it is questionable how Mr Munroe found himself in the position to give an opinion on the matter.

In this latest shooting, 18-year-old Kwondrick Lowe was shot dead after police said he engaged them in the Kemp Road area on January 21 and was shot dead. His family dispute the events and asked to see CCTV footage from the area.

Quite what the footage that the family will be shown has not been announced, but Mr Munroe said yesterday that he had not seen any footage from police bodycams.

Instead, this is “other camera footage”. He said: “There is clear footage at the point that the young man is shot. I intend to have the family come in and they may view it.

“We do not release it but if a family wishes to and, in my judgement, it is safe for them to do so, I permit them to view it because it’s their loved one who is deceased. So I give them and we permit them that privilege but there is coverage of it.”

We hope in this particular instance that the footage brings resolution to the family’s concerns – although a coroner will still need to hold an inquest as and when the near three-year halt in such cases begins to move again.

But the case does highlight that the whole process could do with a lot more transparency, and a lot less of an arbitrary approach.

Mr Munroe has not confirmed the existence of any bodycam footage – and there is really no reason not to reveal whether or not that was recorded on the night. It might not be shown – but there is no reason not to note the facts, even if such recordings are in the hands of the coroner.

Then Mr Munroe says he will “give them and we permit them that privilege” with regard to showing other video footage to the family. What the rules are surrounding the release of non-bodycam footage are not clear, but Mr Munroe seems to be assuming that it’s simply up to him. Does that change on a case-by-case basis, or are all families entitled to view such footage if they wish for such incidents.

There is of course great value in such footage. It can clear the name of officers as much as it can condemn them. Where a shooting is justified, as much as it might be regretted, such footage can make clear that an officer acted properly. Where a shooting is not justified, it is key to getting justice.

Clearly spelling out the process by which bodycam footage can be viewed by parties in such incidents would be helpful. If one is entitled to see it, then so should another. Consistency shows that rules are being followed rather than being made up on the spot.

Beyond the initial police statement and the family’s response, there is much we do not know with regard to this shooting. Officers may well have feared for their lives and responded accordingly. The family may be right in saying Mr Lowe would have run rather than fight.

Mr Munroe moves it a step forward, even though we still do not know if there is bodycam footage as well.

Making this step forward a standard move and detailing the process for viewing footage in such cases may just remove doubts for family members when a police shooting takes place.

Sadly, we have a high rate of police-involved killings in our country – and too often we see video footage of police in other countries carrying out inappropriate actions.

Even here, a recent video showed police officers manhandling a suspect, lifting him up and throwing him to the floor then kicking him in the head.

Every part of the process in revealing what happened during a police-involved shooting should be crystal clear – from revealing what evidence exists to ensuring an opportunity for both sides to view such footage appropriately.

That would be progress indeed.