What are they hiding?

Añadido: 2026-06-04

[00:00:00]Should the police release the body cam video footage in the Henry Novak case?

[00:00:04]That is the question a lot of people are asking. And I've seen polar opposite comments from police officers and non-p police officers both ways, as you might expect. Because if police officers arrived at the scene of a stabbing and the dying victim was handcuffed whilst saying that he'd been stabbed, the obvious question is what did the officers see? What exactly were they told? What exactly did they do? And most importantly, of course, would they have been able to save his life had they acted and got him treated sooner. I've seen uh the comment that his injuries were not survivable, but that changes nothing. And these questions remain.

[00:00:45]I've seen many people say that they should release the body cam and whether these wounds could not be seen and such.

[00:00:52]And surely the public has a right to know exactly what happened. So that is what this video is about. And if you do like my uh discussions on these things, please do subscribe to the channel. Help to support this channel growing. I am an individual. I do not have a team or a company of any other sort behind me. Um it's just me. Everything that I do is myself. So I appreciate you subscribing to the channel. So thank you so much. So for me in this case, it is not simply a question of whether we want to see the footage. It is not just about public curiosity. Some people might be curious, but that is not the point. But legally, what are you actually entitled to see?

[00:01:30]Do police have to release the body cam footage? Can the family obtain it? Can journalists obtain it? And can you obtain it by a freedom of information request? Will it be shown at an inquest of any sort? And could there be a civil claim against the police if the response, their response was negligent uh or if there was a failure to protect life? So, this is not just one tragic case. It's a a bigger and a wider issue about when something goes badly wrong involving police officers, how much of the footage should the public be allowed to see? And my answer in simple terms is this. The police are not automatically required to release body cam footage to the public, to the general public. But that doesn't mean that they can simply bury it and ignore it. There are several routes by which it might be disclosed or reviewed or investigated and eventually aired in public. Some CCTV and body cam footage may ultimately in some cases be leaked to the public, but that is entirely different. Not be not to be covered in this video. And in any case involving a death and police failings and serious public concern, the footage I would expect certainly the body cam footage to be very central to what happens next. So we talk specifically about the Henry Novak case. He was an 18-year-old student stabbed in Southampton and obviously the case has attracted a huge amount of attention because of what is alleged to have happened when police arrived. The allegation being discussed rather publicly is that Henry, having been stabbed, is that police attended and that he was treated as a suspect or potential suspect and that he was handcuffed whilst fatally injured. Some reports and online commentary say that the bodywn footage was also played in court. But that immediately raises a question. If the footage exists, why can we not all see it? But before we jump to any conclusions, I'd like to separate out three different things. Firstly, what happened in the criminal case as against the attacker here who's now been convicted of murder. Secondly, what happened when the police arrived? And thirdly, whether the police response caused, contributed to, or failed to prevent Henry's death. here. Those are very different questions and they are legally very different. So, the criminal trial was about the defendant unlawfully killing Henry Novak, of which he's now been convicted of murder. The police response is an entirely separate question. And any civil claim or inquest issue would focus on whether the police acted lawfully, reasonably, and in accordance with their duties when they arrived. So when people demand that they release the body cam footage, they are really talking about several legal issues or questions all at once. Did the body cam footage form part of the evidence in the criminal case sort of as a whole, not just what happened? Is it relevant to an inquest? Is it relevant to a misconduct investigation? Would it be relevant in a civil claim by the family against the police? And there is wider the public interest in releasing it so the public can judge for themselves that is phrased as a question. So firstly, do the police have to release the body cam footage? The short answer is no. There's no general rule in England and Wales that says police must publish any bodywn video footage every time there's a controversial incident. Of course, there'll be a decision and you know, it might help uh public perception if it is in favor of the police and so on. But um unlike in America where some police departments routinely release body cam footage after say shootings or high-profile incidents, which you might see online, there's some YouTube videos out there that show you all of these things in great detail. But in England and Wales, the position is a little bit more cautious. Bodyworn video footage is evidence of course. It is also personal data. It contains personal data. That is to say uh data that could identify an identifiable individual who may be present in the video. It may contain obviously victims, witnesses, suspects, bystanders, all sorts of medical information, not to mention distressing images and all of that sort of stuff. uh voices, faces, and other sensitive material. So, the police cannot simply upload it to X or whatever just because the public demands transparency. They do have to consider several things. Will releasing it prejudice any criminal proceedings in any way whatsoever. Will it prejudice an inquest? Would it prejudice a misconduct investigation?

[00:06:26]Just touching on the inquest, obviously that will be with a jury. I say obviously some people don't know that an inquest will be with a jury. So releasing it prematurely might prejudice an inquest. Would it prejudice a misconduct investigation? Again, there's another question there. Will it reveal personal data? Will it identify witnesses and compromise anybody and that sort of thing? Uh would it distress the family by releasing it? Again, it's a proportionality question here and whether it changes anything because you know it it might affect a lot of people in different ways. There might be contempt of court questions. It might cause wider disorder and public outcry and everything else. So all of that essentially means the police have to consider all these things and ultimately they have a discretion. They may release footage or part of footage where there's a legitimate policing purpose and where the release is necessary and proportionate for that policing purpose.

[00:07:25]But the default position is not automatic publication.

[00:07:30]And frankly, in a case involving the death of an 18-year-old and possible footage of exactly what happened in those final moments, etc., would be quite tragic. I would not expect the full footage to be released. uh certainly not quickly and casually. I would expect that at the very at the very most there would be elements of it that would be released and it would be heavily redacted and cut short and so on. But none of that means that it would ever be released and of course conversely none of that means it should never be released either. It just means that there are serious considerations, there are some legal hurdles and all of it has to be justified. Another question is whether the family is entitled to see it. And that becomes a a rather challenging subject as well because whilst the general public may not have a right to see the footage, the family may have a much stronger argument, particularly if there's an inquest and the coroner can obtain relevant evidence. And if the body cam footage is relevant to how he died, as in, you know, what the officers saw, what they did, what they failed to do, and whether emergency treatment was delayed, and then all of that sort of thing, then I would expect that that footage, all of it in its entirety would be highly relevant. And thus it may uh be disclosed properly to interested persons in the inquest which will quite obviously include the family or certainly their lawyers as they might not want to see it but certainly their lawyers. But even then disclosure to a family is not necessarily the same as a wide public release to the general public as in the the whole world etc. So in in essence, the coroner can control how the evidence is used much like any other court would. The footage may be shown in court. It might be summarized.

[00:09:24]It may be partially redacted. It may quite likely be subject to certain restrictions.

[00:09:31]or the coroner may decide that uh particular footage is too distressing or unnecessary to play publicly if the relevant facts can be established in another way. So where there's a serious dispute about what happened, the body cam footage can obviously become crucial. You know, who did what, who said what, and how did the events unfold. But it may answer questions that other witness statements may not be able to address adequately. You know, what was visible? What did Henry say? What did his killer say? What did the officers ask? What did they say? What did they know? And what did they notice?

[00:10:13]Did they notice any of these injuries at any time? And was there any delay? Was there a call for medical help? When were the handcuffs applied? When were they removed? and was you know when was any aid given and all of these sort of things and you know why there was a delay and again all of these are evidential questions which would be highly relevant. So if the footage exists that shows any or all of that then at some stage someone will have to review it properly. Next we've had a question as to whether people can obtain that under the freedom of information.

[00:10:47]This is where uh with respect some people misunderstand the law. They often just say, "I'll make an FOI request."

[00:10:53]And they're entitled to everything. But FOIs is are not a magic key to uh video footage and certainly not police body cam footage. There are multiple exemptions that apply. Uh firstly, if there's ongoing criminal proceedings or future proceedings, including an inquest, misconduct proceedings, investigations, the police can refuse disclosure where the release would otherwise prejudice those processes.

[00:11:22]There are also, as I mentioned, data protection issues and uh public interest and all of those sort of issues as well.

[00:11:29]And quite obviously, it will contain personal data in the way that I've mentioned in including special category data. It may contain medical information and it may have scenes that would not be appropriate to just release under an FOI request from a random member of the public. And so in short, a random member of the public is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to get the raw footage in a case like this. In essence, what you're likely to get is a refusal notice explaining at most why it's been exempted, if you get as much as an explanation. Now a person who is actually in the footage might be able to make a data subject access request because they might appear in the footage but even that has limits. It is usually limited to you the data subject who is making the request and if it includes other people and their faces and voices will likely be blurred or removed or whatever. And if the disclosure would prejudice anything else such as the investigation or legal proceedings or if they are not able to sufficiently redact third parties then it's likely that that would be withheld in any event. So let me come down to the basic question. Will this full body cam footage ever be released? Well, it's possible, but I would not assume that the full raw footage will be released either ever or certainly while there are still live legal processes or prospective legal processes such as an inquest uh as parts of it might be played in open court.

[00:13:01]Even if there's a misconduct investigation, parts of it might eventually be disclosed. And if the police decide that public confidence requires it, they might release edited or obscured or some other footage like that. And we have in recent years seen signs that some police forces are becoming more willing to release bodywn video footage where it helps to correct misleading uh public narratives and public impression. The Met Police recently indicated a move towards releasing body cam footage where it can improve uh transparency and public trust. But that is not the same as a legal duty or a compulsion to release everything. The police will say that they have to balance against transparency, fairness, legal proceedings, and of course the dignity of uh those who've sadly been killed. So personally, I wouldn't frame this as if they don't release it, they are hiding something. I think that is far too simplistic. I would say if the footage is central to understanding whether the police failed Henry Novak in some way, then it must be reviewed independently and properly and it must be disclosed through the proper legal processes and not just quietly buried behind vague statements, but it would have to be considered very carefully. Next, people have asked me whether there's a potential claim against the police, and the answer, as usual, is potentially yes. And I would say that it's quite likely that lawyers will at least be looking carefully at the possibility.

[00:14:32]Um, but it depends on the evidence. In English law, claims against the police are not entirely straightforward.

[00:14:39]There's no general rule that the police are liable every time they fail to prevent something. For example, their primary role is not necessarily to protect the public, believe it or not, and is not necessarily to prevent harm.

[00:14:53]So there's no general rule that they are liable every time they fail to do one of those things, especially when that is caused by a criminal. So whilst they do obviously do their best to protect the public and for public safety, they are not absolutely responsible for that and they cannot be sued just because they didn't arrive sooner, for example, or because they didn't prevent a crime from happening. But of course, that is not the end of it. It is not quite that simple. The law does draw distinctions between failing to prevent harm caused by someone else and making the situation worse. This is the difference between malfeasants and nonfeasants.

[00:15:30]Non-feasants having not done something that they should have done, malfeasants having done something badly when they tried to um assist. So if officers attend the scene of a stabbing such as this and then actively restrain the victim and handcuff him and delay treatment and fail to recognize obvious injuries or disbelieve him and you know fail to investigate what he's said and that sort of thing or they identify him as the wrong person in a dispute um despite clear signs. Obviously there may be a serious problem for the police here. That is not simply failing to stop an attacker. It may well make them culpable. Then of course there's the ECR articles as well, the right to life and all of those sort of things. And then of course people use phrases such as failure of police duty or police negligence and such. So negligence would require a duty of care, a breach of that duty of care and the causation of some sort of loss. So in simple terms, the questions are always similar. Did the police owe Henry a legal duty of care?

[00:16:35]Did they breach that duty? And did that breach cause or materially contribute to his death or to any avoidable suffering?

[00:16:45]And again, the human rights claim uh might come into play here as well. And there are several other questions as well, even including possible misfeasants in public office, which is usually a much higher bar, more difficult to prove, but it requires bad faith or knowingly abusing power, which is not an obvious route in most cases, but it's certainly something that some consider. Next is a possible assault or false imprisonment if he was unlawfully handcuffed and detained for something that he really shouldn't have been. And of course, all of that leads to possible inquest findings and possible findings of misconduct and so on. So, I hope all that's useful. But in short, there's no compulsion upon police to release the footage, although they might release an edited version so long as it doesn't jeopardize any legal proceedings and they see that it's proportionate and necessary, etc. But there's also possible claims against the police in this situation, which I would expect to be thoroughly investigated. So, I hope that's useful. Please do subscribe to the channel and as always thank you for watching.