---

Terrorism Act 2000 (Revised Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Terrorism Act 2000 (Revised Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers ) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 [22nd Report from the Joint Committee]. The noble Lord said: A draft of the order was laid before this House on 15 March. The order brings into force a revised code of practice, a substantial document, made under Section 99 of the Terrorism Act 2000—part of the temporary counter-terrorism provisions specific to Northern Ireland. The revised code of practice makes video identification the primary method of identifying a suspect. The previous primary method was an identity line-up. Similar changes are being made to codes under PACE police legislation, via negative resolution. I refer to video ID technology known as VIPER; Video Identification Parade Electronic Recording. The suspect’s image is captured on film. It is edited to a 15-second moving head and shoulder shot. That is compiled with eight or more images of similar looking people into a video identification parade, with the suspect and a solicitor able to choose the other images. They are then burnt onto a DVD and can be viewed by the victim or witness in the presence of the suspect’s solicitor, or the ID process itself can be videoed. Video ID offers extensive improvements. Traditional line-ups are cumbersome and unwieldy to operate, and are unfit for modern policing. There is one line-up ID suite for the whole of Northern Ireland, in Belfast. Line-up volunteers, suspects, victims, witnesses and police all have to travel to Belfast. Terrorist suspects are transported there from Antrim Serious Crime Suite at a cost to police, and at a risk to the public. Live identity parades suffer from a disproportionately high cancellation rate—little wonder. There are half a dozen video ID suites available across Northern Ireland, where the suspect’s image can be captured—that can be done at the moment of detention. It is less stressful for everybody concerned. It is modern technology and a lot cheaper. Video ID is also a more reliable technique for identifying suspects. The suspect’s solicitor is involved in choosing the other images to go on the DVD to be looked at. Research suggests that video ID increases positive identifications and takes place closer to the time of the event, so it can be done a lot quicker. During the trial stage of video identification procedures in west Yorkshire, the local police found that the process contributed to more successful identification of offenders, resulting in more prosecutions. There was a 26 per cent fall in the number of snatch thefts and robberies during that period. The court can view the exact video ID parade as used by the witness to identify the suspect, because the whole thing can be videoed for the court—the identification and the person viewing the images, not just the burnt images. There is transparency in the court process, a reduction in cancellation rates, as well as significant benefits to the police. Again, in west Yorkshire, following the introduction of VIPER, the proportion of abandoned identity parades fell from 51 per cent to less than 10 per cent. That is a massive cost saving—around a third of the cost of live identity parades. According to the Home Office, a traditional live identity parade costs between £800 and £1,200 over a period of two months to set up and run it. In contrast, it can take about two hours to set up a video parade, which costs about £150 to £300. Overall, therefore, we expect savings of around 75 per cent over a live line-up. That is money to be kept in the police’s budget for more important things. There are also manpower savings—officers in the Belfast ID suite will be redeployed to frontline services. Civilian workers can staff the new video suites. I think this is the last of my examples, but it is a good one to give: during the first year that Devon and Cornwall Constabulary introduced video identification, an estimated 2,970 days of police time, previously spent organising live parades, was saved. That equated to putting 13 officers back on the beat. The process benefits the suspect. Their solicitor is more involved in the identification process. They are present at the suspect’s image capture, and also at the screening of the ID parade itself. The solicitor and suspect are able to choose from a database of 14,000 images to use in the parade, so there is a fairly even-handed approach there. People have put themselves forward to be part of the 14,000; I understand that they are paid a few pence for that. They do not get royalties each time their image is used—it is part of a public service. It is a much more efficient system, and these techniques are now being employed by police forces across the United Kingdom—as well as, I understand, the Military Police in Germany. It is obviously more efficient, user-friendly, suspect-friendly and witness-friendly. It works for both sides, and so is a very even-handed approach. I beg to move. Moved, that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Terrorism Act 2000 (Revised Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)