Body worn video for MG11 reports

torontoaddick · 7 Aug 2026

Saw this interaction on X:

@ChimeWhistle
Rail sources have told me that the DfT is bringing in a policy that there must be body worn video footage of a revenue protection officer's interaction with a fare evader, in order to prosecute them. This is for MG-11 report for prosecutions, not penalty fares.
9:09 am · 6 Aug 2026

@SteveWhiteRail 6 Aug
This is very sensible and already the practice for many revenue staff. Similarly when staff assaults take place prosecutions are five times more successful when BWV evidence is available. This is to support rail staff in the difficult job they do.

I wonder if the people stopped will be told that they can request a copy of the video afterwards?

RailUK Forums

jon0844 · 7 Aug 2026

torontoaddick said:
I wonder if the people stopped will be told that they can request a copy of the video afterwards?

Isn't video from a body camera provided to individuals without sound (much as you'd get from any normal CCTV that doesn't record sound)?

saismee · 7 Aug 2026

torontoaddick said:
This is very sensible and already the practice for many revenue staff. Similarly when staff assaults take place prosecutions are five times more successful when BWV evidence is available. This is to support rail staff in the difficult job they do.

Assaults are also ~50% less likely while wearing a body camera, according to my training.

AlterEgo · 7 Aug 2026

This is no doubt to provide evidence that the person stopped is the person being taken to court. As I have pointed out many times, at the moment you can just say "it wasn't me" and the TOC basically has to drop the case.

Cloud Strife · 7 Aug 2026

AlterEgo said:
This is no doubt to provide evidence that the person stopped is the person being taken to court. As I have pointed out many times, at the moment you can just say "it wasn't me" and the TOC basically has to drop the case.

I think it's generally a good move, as long as sound is provided. It certainly would help to eliminate cases where someone has been falsely told that they will just have to pay the fare or other misrepresentations by revenue staff.

Bletchleyite · 7 Aug 2026

Cloud Strife said:
I think it's generally a good move, as long as sound is provided. It certainly would help to eliminate cases where someone has been falsely told that they will just have to pay the fare or other misrepresentations by revenue staff.

While these statements are dishonest and should arguably render the member of staff subject to some sort of management intervention (because under no circumstances should any member of staff ever wilfully lie to a passenger), I don't see any reason why they would prevent a prosecution being viable. They don't after all affect that the offence was committed, nor do they in any way affect the fact that the passenger is legally required to provide their details.

Bigdurian · 7 Aug 2026

It's also for PFs, according to the guidance I recieved. For the same reason. Proof that someone was there.

Had a woman question me earlier about the legality of it re GDPR, she didn't consent etc....

Tetchytyke · 7 Aug 2026

Bletchleyite said:
I don't see any reason why they would prevent a prosecution being viable.

Investigators must act fairly when questioning people and, where they don't, any such evidence can be ruled inadmissible.

So if an RPI says "tell us where you came from, we'll just ask for the fare," that's not exactly acting fairly. If they had been honest, "tell us where you came from so we can prosecute you," they'd likely get a no comment.

BazingaTribe · 8 Aug 2026

Bigdurian said:
It's also for PFs, according to the guidance I recieved. For the same reason. Proof that someone was there.

Had a woman question me earlier about the legality of it re GDPR, she didn't consent etc....

AIUI she doesn't have to consent -- GDPR offers a number of other reasons for data collection and retention, including 'legitimate interest'.

RPI · 8 Aug 2026

This has been standard procedure at my TOC since about 2019

talldave · 8 Aug 2026

If video evidence is going to remain credible in a world of AI media manipulation then cameras are going to have to be replaced with ones supporting robust media authenticity marking such as C2PA.

AlterEgo · 8 Aug 2026

talldave said:
If video evidence is going to remain credible in a world of AI media manipulation then cameras are going to have to be replaced with ones supporting robust media authenticity marking such as C2PA.

I doubt a court would really care in a fare evasion case. Courts will accept written statements for example, why would they not accept video?

Bigdurian · 8 Aug 2026

BazingaTribe said:
AIUI she doesn't have to consent -- GDPR offers a number of other reasons for data collection and retention, including 'legitimate interest'.

Correct. Which is exactly what I told her....

SCDR_WMR · 9 Aug 2026

talldave said:
If video evidence is going to remain credible in a world of AI media manipulation then cameras are going to have to be replaced with ones supporting robust media authenticity marking such as C2PA.

I mean you're really going down a rabbit hole with that one!

So you really think TOCs will ever get to the point of training staff to, or use AI to, manipulate videos for prosecution purposes? That's an extreme level of mistrust IMO.

Barely enough staff to process PFs and MGs as it is, hence long waits for correspondence at many TOCs.

BazingaTribe · 9 Aug 2026

talldave said:
If video evidence is going to remain credible in a world of AI media manipulation then cameras are going to have to be replaced with ones supporting robust media authenticity marking such as C2PA.

It might convince more people to pay the correct fare at the first instance rather than risk being deepfaked.

dodecahedron67 · 9 Aug 2026

This has been policy at a few TOCs anyway for a while. When I got trained on TIRs I was told to make sure I wear a bodycam so that there is footage of me handing the TIR to the person, in case they try to pull the ‘I wasn’t there, it wasn’t me’ line

talldave · 10 Aug 2026

SCDR_WMR said:
I mean you're really going down a rabbit hole with that one!

So you really think TOCs will ever get to the point of training staff to, or use AI to, manipulate videos for prosecution purposes? That's an extreme level of mistrust IMO.

Barely enough staff to process PFs and MGs as it is, hence long waits for correspondence at many TOCs.

No I'm saying courts will be unable to trust video evidence generally without a provenance trail.

AlterEgo · 10 Aug 2026

talldave said:
No I'm saying courts will be unable to trust video evidence generally without a provenance trail.

Why would they treat it differently to other far less reliable types of evidence in this respect?

talldave · 10 Aug 2026

AlterEgo said:
Why would they treat it differently to other far less reliable types of evidence in this respect?

Because it now has the potential to be entirely faked. So what used to be credible evidence is no longer guaranteed to be so.

The issue is nothing to do with other forms of evidence which haven't changed.

AlterEgo · 10 Aug 2026

talldave said:
Because it now has the potential to be entirely faked. So what used to be credible evidence is no longer guaranteed to be so.

The issue is nothing to do with other forms of evidence which haven't changed.

But all forms of evidence can be faked. Video has always been able to be faked as well, just it is a bit more convincing now.

Let me know if you ever need a bank statement or a clock in sheet making on Canva to give an alibi or your metadata changing in your camera roll. Takes a couple of minutes.

Body worn video for MG11 reports

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas