Is the full body‑worn and CCTV footage from the Filton incident publicly available, and how do independent reviewers interpret it?
Executive summary
The complete, unedited body‑worn camera (BWV) and CCTV recordings from the Filton incident are not reported to be publicly released in full; the material shown in court and to the public consisted of selected, edited clips and an evidence film compiled for the trial [1] [2]. Independent reviewers — defence lawyers, trial reporters and investigative commentators — find the available footage confusing in parts but argue it tends to undermine the prosecution’s narrative and raises serious questions about missing or altered footage and chain‑of‑custody [3] [1] [2].
1. What "publicly available" footage exists and what it is not
The prosecution presented a curated evidence film to the jury made from security CCTV and BWV seized from security firms, police and some defendants; selected, edited “highlights” were also released to media under reporting restrictions [1] [2]. None of the sources reviewed claim an official public dump of the full, continuous, unedited set of BWV and CCTV across all cameras; instead reporting describes edited presentations and USBs logged into evidence and opened at trial, not broad public release of raw files [4] [5].
2. What the available clips show on their face
Reporters and court summaries describe clips that capture chaotic confrontations, rapid motion blur in BWV and time‑lapsed/low frame CCTV that make sequences difficult to follow, while also showing moments where security guards and police use force and where at least one person wields a sledgehammer [1] [6]. Defence accounts and some trial reporting highlight scenes where activists appear to be frightened and where a security guard or guards act aggressively toward protesters before police intervene [6] [3].
3. How independent reviewers and defence teams interpret the footage
Defence barristers and sympathetic commentators argue the footage, even in edited form, supports a defence of self‑defence and shows security and police escalation — for example, the defence says only one person among the activists used a sledgehammer offensively while security personnel initiated or escalated violence in several encounters [3] [6]. Independent court reporters and analysts describe the footage as “confusing” but note patterns that challenge the prosecution’s framing; Jonathan Cook and Real Media both present the trial as a narrative battleground where edited highlights may have misled the public [2] [1].
4. Concerns about missing, edited and late‑obtained footage
Multiple contemporaneous summaries raise alarm about missing CCTV from key angles, BWV being turned on and off or edited by Elbit’s security provider, and evidence USBs found in Elbit safes or provided late to police — facts that critics say undermine reliability and suggest problematic evidence handling [7] [4] [5]. Trial testimony described a police CCTV recovery officer being instructed to collect cameras covering the incident and preceding days, and prosecutorial presentations acknowledged that some cameras were time‑lapsed or produced challenging images [4] [1].
5. Alternative viewpoints and prosecutorial stance
The prosecution maintained selected footage supported charges, and did show edited sequences to the jury as part of its case; those clips were treated in court as evidence even as prosecutors and police were questioned about what footage was missing or why some files were only reviewed late in the inquiry [1] [5]. The public release of “highlights” by prosecutors prompted criticism that the material was edited and potentially misleading, an objection raised by commentators who tracked the trial [2].
6. Bottom line and evidentiary limits
There is no reliable reporting that the full, continuous set of BWV and CCTV from every camera and device at Filton has been publicly released; what is available publicly and in court are edited compilations and selected clips, and independent reviewers — including defence lawyers and investigative reporters — interpret those clips as ambiguous in places but tending to raise serious questions about security and police conduct and about missing or altered footage [1] [3] [7]. Reporting limitations prevent confirming whether unedited master files exist beyond sealed evidence USBs and internal police/Elbit holdings; assertions about the unseen material cannot be verified from the sources provided [4] [5].