Joint Policing Committee, Oct 2006
October 9th, 2006The Letterkenny Joint Policing Committee (JPC) met again on Thursday night (Oct 5th), to discuss two topics - the CCTV application, and election of a Deputy Chairperson for the Committee.
As part of the Grant funding process for the CCTV application, the local JPC must be consulted before final approval is given. Joanne Sweeney from the Chamber of Commerce, who have led the application process, gave a presentation to the members outlining the application (which has received approval from the Dept of Justice). A number of members had questions regardind the management and operation of the system, which Joanne and I were able to address. The Committee fully supported the application, meaning it can now be forwarded to Garda HQ for final approval.
I’ve been working on this application, with the Gardai locally and the Chamber of Commerce, for about two years now, so I’m delighted to see it get this far. The Council has been very supportive throughout, putting up the matching funding required and providing infrastructural support whenever needed.
After the CCTV business was dealt with, we had a vote on the position of Deputy Chairperson (I am currently the Chairperson of the Committee). In a vote, Cllr Gerry McMonagle (SF) beat out Cllr Jim Lynch (Ind) by 7 to 5. Gerry is a very hard-working Councillor, and I know from discussions we have had that he is very interested in the policing issue locally, and how the JPC can contribute.
Related Entries
5 Responses to “Joint Policing Committee, Oct 2006”
Comments are not moderated before posting. Every effort will be made to keep these clean, but I ask your co-operation. Please do not post any offensive or defamatory content below. I am not responsible for the content of comments below.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Congratulations Damien, both to yourself and Joanne and all on the Chamber Council for keeping the CCTV application going. There is possibly another ‘Blake’ in Letterkenny who no doubt will be happy to finally see a CCTV deployment in the town.
‘to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting’ Sun Tzu
October 10th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
One point i believe worth mentioning.. (please correct me if i’m wrong)
There doesn’t appear to have been much research into the effectiveness of CCTV systems, for crime prevention.
Either by the local council members who want it installed or on a national level.
Should not more time be invested analysing publications by other authorities nationally or internationally before rushing into this?
some basic questions..
What type of CCTV:
analog or digital?
which is more efficient/expensive?
who will be involved in the repair,preservation & funding of this system?
I agree this is a proactive step towards crime prevention, but please consider that it is a costly operation if done correctly.
there will be technical problems, not to mention vandalism.
*ALOT* of money is going to be required in order to design,install & maintain this system, who will fund it?
will the council cut corners in order to save money, effectively installing a poor quality system, that doesn’t work as well as it should?
i’ve seen enough..(i’m sure you have too)crimecall “CCTV footage” to realise that its a waste of time even asking the public if they “know who this person is..” from poor quality video footage.
also, there is plausible deniability in court for a defendant.
they can always claim mistaken identity..& unless someone in person is actual witness to a criminal offence, or the defendant admits to an offence..how will CCTV footage be enough?
will it really work is the question?
October 11th, 2006 at 6:15 am
Weiss,
There are several reports on the effectiveness of CCTV in Ireland at present. I wrote one report which was used in the initial stages in Letterkenny in 2004 for the Chamber of Commerce. The Garda Siochana has two which are also not in the public domain (unless you apply under FOI) and a third which was conducted by a student at the Institute of Public Administration. All these reports covered various elements and aspects of CCTV deployment in Ireland. They covered the economic viability, as an aid to the Gardai, the implications on Garda HR management and two detailed examinations of the present deployments in Tralee and Dublin (manned and unmanned).
It is standard that all CCTV deployments are digital, first the image quality is superior, the data recording, indexing and retrieval is fast and the image translation at night under poor light (a factor in Letterkenny) does not exist with analogue systems. (The footage on TV programmes from CCTV systems nearly always analogue systems.)
As digital systems are now the norm throughout the world the price of these systems are far less than that of analogue. An example is the Panasonic X series camera’s which cost in the region of €1,200 inc. Vat. These have been deployed in several towns in Ireland. They are secure wireless dome camera’s that transmit the feed back to a base station up to 7 km without line of site thus cutting out the fixed line wiring costs. I’m unsure as to what has been profiled for Letterkenny, but I would imagine and hope that it would also be wireless. (Hills and tall buildings don’t affect these systems).
Damien will have to help you on the repair and preservation of the system.
If I remember correctly, the application for the CCTV system had to be from a cross community group which in 2004 was lead by the Chamber. Funding is from the Dept. Of Justice and comes under the following guides:
What is the maximum grant awardable under the Scheme?
The maximum grant awardable by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in any circumstances, is €100,000. Within this limit, grants of up to 70% of the total capital costs of the system may be awarded.
In order to qualify for the maximum capital grant (i.e. 70% of capital costs of the system), applicants are required to raise a minimum of 15% of the capital cost of the system, from *non-public funds. Proof of the local funding contribution must be submitted with the application. The remaining 15% may be raised from public and other funding sources.
If a group is unable to source funding which does not originate from a Government Department or Local Authority, or a body wholly funded from such sources, it is not prevented from submitting an application under this Scheme. Where applicants are unable to raise 15% of the capital cost, from non-public funds, then the maximum capital grant awardable by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is 50% of the capital costs of the system (subject to the maximum award limit of €100,000).
Finally, on your point of ‘plausible deniability’, whether you were caught on camera at night in a dark environment or were identified by a witness standing beside you in broad daylight, plausible deniability can be used in either circumstance. It is the responsibility of the Judge/s or jury to decide whether the person being brought before the court is indeed the person that a CCTV camera has caught or that a witness has identified. From experience (while working in the courts) I have yet to witness CCTV being judged inadmissible by a jury or Judge.
There are numerous deployments of CCTV in Ireland. One such case I’m very familiar with is Castlebar. There the Chamber of Commerce in 2004 raised the money from local businesses to install a six camera secure wireless system. The system has its own secure monitoring room with digital data recorders and camera controllers and a second feed is connected to the local Garda Station. The system cost I believe in the region of €40,000 ( I may be wrong) and has been used to apprehend many individuals as well as to prevent many incidents of public disorder.
If other towns all over Ireland are using it with success both as a deterrent (its real strength) and as a tool to assist Gardai in prosecutions I have no doubt that it will be a success in Letterkenny.
October 11th, 2006 at 8:02 am
I think Oisin has addressed Weiss’s comments well, from his time in the Chamber of Commerce working on the reports which led to this succesful application.
I have never claimed that CCTV is going to solve all our problems. Letterkenny is not a very unsafe town; there are only a handful of incidents each year when this CCTV system would come into use. When those times come around, I think it’s important we have this resource available, particularly when we can draw down 70% grant aid towards the cost of the project.
To address Weiss’s questions:
*) The system will be fully digital
*) Digital systems are (as Oisin outlines) more efficient and less expensive
*) Letterkenny Town Council is committing up to 45,000, the Dept of Justice is committing 72,500 towards the capital costs of the project. Letterkenny Town Council will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and management costs of the project.
If you have any other questions, leave a comment here and I’ll do what I can to answer it. Thanks to Oisin for his help on this one.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
i stand corrected, thanks for the response.