Police stations in the country are being outfitted with a ’suite’ that will allow for the video recording of witness testimony, now that the necessary legislation-the Evidence Amendment Bill-has been passed.

Attorney General John Jeremie told the House of Representatives yesterday the Belmont and Tunapuna police stations, and stations in the South, are now equipped to do the videotaping.

The Opposition is vehemently against the idea of the videotaping being done at a police station because, they argued, police officers can ’coach’ or worse yet coerce witnesses. (- See story at right)

But Jeremie gave the assurance that safeguards would be put in place to avoid manipulation of the system by police officers. He said the rules, which have already been drafted, to be applied in the videotaping of evidence would be stringent enough to ensure the integrity of the process is guaranteed.

Government sources said yesterday some of these rules would include the date- and time-stamping of videotapes, certification by a competent authority, saying that every second is recorded on every video frame and cameras must be placed in all parts of the room.

Responding to concerns raised by Opposition MP Subhas Panday about ’the purity of the system’, Jeremie said there were also safeguards contained in the Standing Orders of the judges rules, which are applied before any statement (which would include a videotape statement) could be admitted into evidence.

These include the need for caution of the person (’the right to remain silent’ speech), entitlement of the witness to legal representation, and the witness must be fed or must not be deprived of food. Jeremie also said the issue of having a custodian present during the videotaping -notably a justice of the peace-was also being considered. He said all over the world, the videotaping of evidence and the interviewing of witnesses was an integral part of police work.

Panday had suggested the video recording not be done by police at a station but by an independent body. He said the Opposition was advocating the Forensic Science Centre do the video recording or the centre employ experts to do the job.

But Jeremie stated: ’If you are going to have witnesses from throughout the country come down to the Forensic Science Centre, clearly that cannot work.’

The attorney general said after the passage of the 2007 Evidence Act, which allowed a statement to be admitted into evidence once a witness was killed, criminals stopped killing witnesses who had already given statements.

Instead, he noted, they began to resort to intimidation and frightening of witnesses who had given statements, in an effort to get them to change their testimony once they got to court.

Responding to the argument by Panday that anyone could make a case for being fearful and, therefore, benefit from the videotaping of evidence, Works Minister Colm Imbert said Government brought an amendment stating the person must be fearful, ’and no reasonable steps can be taken to protect the person’.

’It is not going to be a free-for-all,’ Imbert stressed, adding the court would also have a discretion on whether to admit the videotaped evidence or not.

Imbert, in defending the legislation, said the court would now have the discretion to admit previous inconsistent statements, so the jury has the benefit of both testimonies.

Imbert said what was currently happening was that previous statements, while not being admitted into evidence, were being used to challenge the credibility of a witness. What the new law would allow is for the jury to decide whether the previous statement is true or not. So the jury is no longer deprived of the right to look at all the evidence, he said.

Panday said instead of bringing such ’draconian law’, Government should have brought anti-gang legislation.

’We should have had a situation where you have a state of emergency in the law...such strong legislation that is almost tantamount to the state of emergency,’ he said.