Thank you Just Blue. I have just gone through the TOS.
Our courts (Sierra Leone) are becoming more "international" and references are being made to precedents in US Law.
If the evidence is admissible in US courts but not in English courts, it will more likely be admissible in our courts.
Will the "courts" accept this evidence?
For a general guide, you can look at the Federal Rules of Evidence. In General, for evidence to be admitted, it must be relevant and inherently reliable. To admit video evidence, a witness is required to authenticate the video, that is to say the witness must testify that the video it a true and accurate representation of the events that took place at that place, at that time and date. It’s usually pretty easy for a percipient witness to authenticate a video. Surveillance video is a different issue, when there was no percipient witness to the event. In that case, someone who is familiar with the surveillance system must testify that she is familiar with the particular surveillance system, that she is familiar with the placement of the cameras, and has knowledge that the video was recorded on a particular date and time.
I had a case where the police had a surveillance video that appeared to show my client committing a crime. The police had retrieved the video from the store. On the day of trial I objected to the introduction of the video because they did not summons a witness to from the store to authenticate the video. My objection was sustained, and my client was found not guilty.