The new baseline: Why automated redaction is now a recognised, operational necessity in Policing
As a frontline officer for 16 years, I saw firsthand how video evidence could provide compelling evidence to strengthen cases, improve transparency, and build public trust. But I also saw and felt the hidden burden that came with it.
The widespread adoption of body-worn video (BWV), combined with exponential growth in CCTV, dashcam and mobile phone footage, has fundamentally changed how police officers work, how investigations are conducted and how evidence is presented in court.
At the time, I did not fully appreciate the administrative and legal responsibilities associated with reviewing, redacting and preparing footage for disclosure — only that it was essential. What was once an occasional task, became a daily operational requirement, placing significant pressure on officers, investigators and specialist disclosure teams.
This reality has now been formally recognised at the highest level, through the recent Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. He has highlighted digital evidence as one of the defining challenges facing the criminal justice system. The review makes clear that current processes for handling and preparing digital material are placing unsustainable demands on policing and court systems, and explicitly recognises the role that automated redaction tools must play in improving efficiency.
This acknowledgement represents an important shift — from seeing redaction as an administrative task to recognising it as critical infrastructure for modern justice.
The operational reality for UK Policing
For frontline officers and investigators, redaction is not simply a technical exercise, it is a legal and ethical necessity. Digital evidence, CCTV and body-worn video (BWV) in particular, often contains the identities of victims, witnesses, bystanders, or vulnerable individuals who must be protected before material can be shared with prosecutors, defence teams, or the media.
Every frame must be reviewed, and every face, vehicle registration and identifying feature must be considered. Every investigation will have different requirements - different victims, witnesses and locations, to be considered with varying safeguarding requirements.
When done manually, the redaction process is extremely time-consuming. At a national level, I worked closely with police forces across the UK and saw the unmeasured scale of this challenge. I made it a strategic priority to quantify and highlight the operational burden of manual redaction. Following discussions at the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and recognition within the Police Productivity Review, work began to substantiate the true scale of the problem.
Subsequent research conducted through the Home Office Accelerated Capability Environment found that manually redacting a single 60-minute evidential clip can take up to nine hours.
For the first time, the burden could be quantified. This figure illustrates a level of demand on policing that is simply unsustainable.
In more complex cases, the burden can be significantly greater. Forensic teams working with sensitive material have reported that in some cases, body-worn video for evidential disclosure can take several weeks, due to the level of frame-by-frame scrutiny required to ensure that victims, witnesses and vulnerable individuals are fully protected.
On top of this vast redaction challenge, police forces are increasing the amount of footage they collect and manage. There has been new investment in public portals, which actively encourage members of the public and businesses to submit their own footage (from mobile phones, dash cams, CCTV). Witness appeals now look different - accompanied by a QR code for instant upload of digital evidence.
But the tools and processes available to policing to manage this influx of data have struggled to keep pace. Specialist teams responsible for disclosure and subject access requests face growing backlogs, and delays in preparing evidence can have real consequences for victims awaiting justice.
Take advantage of our automated video redaction solution today.
The technology is here: scalable, automated redaction
Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Computer Vision have already made automated and highly-accurate detection and redaction of faces, license plates, screens, and other identifying features a reality in other sectors. Automation can reduce hours of work to minutes - within Policing, this means officers and staff can focus on investigative and frontline activities rather than spending hours drawing boxes around objects on videos.
However, perhaps most importantly, accurate, automated redaction does not remove the need for human oversight - accuracy does not equal accountability. Within Policing, it will always require accountability and verification - but this technology fundamentally changes the speed and scale at which redaction can be completed.
These capabilities are expanding beyond video alone - tools that support audio transcription, automated summarisation of interviews, document redaction, and the ability to search digital evidence for specific objects or features. These capabilities will further streamline investigative workflows and improve the efficiency of evidence handling across the criminal justice process.
Integration with existing policing systems will also be critical, ensuring that these tools enhance — rather than disrupt — established operational workflows.
The question, therefore, was not whether the technology existed, but why policing did not yet have access to it.
What does it mean for UK Policing leaders?
The Leveson Review sends a clear signal: the criminal justice system must adapt to the realities of the digital age. For policing, this means recognising that automated redaction and digital evidence management are no longer optional enhancements — they are essential capabilities.
One recommendation of the inquiry is that forces adopt these technologies, in order to be better equipped to manage growing evidence volumes, reduce administrative burden on officers, and improve the timeliness and quality of evidence provided to the courts.
However, it's not simply a matter of deploying new technology. This requires organisational change across all policing teams who handle digital evidence. Training, clear governance, and confidence in AI-assisted processes are all essential. Officers and staff must understand that automation supports professional judgement rather than replacing it.
This is goes far beyond efficiency. It is about improving outcomes for victims, supporting fair and timely justice, and ensuring that policing can continue to operate effectively in an increasingly digital world.
The shift from technical luxury to operational necessity
There has been no sudden turning point, but rather a gradual realisation across policing. As digital evidence volumes have increased, the strain on existing processes has become impossible to ignore.
My position is unique - few people provide visibility across the full spectrum of this challenge from frontline policing, to national policy, to industry delivery. Having operated across all three, it is clear that what was once a technical luxury is now an operational necessity.
I am now working closely with police forces across the UK as they begin embedding automated redaction and digital evidence tools into operational workflows. What is evident is that forces are not simply seeking efficiency gains, or novelty - they are seeking sustainability. They want integrated solutions that combine redaction, transcription, document handling and search capabilities, within secure platforms that support disclosure obligations.
The Leveson Review confirms the challenge, and the direction of travel is clear. Digital evidence will only continue to grow, and policing must equip itself with the infrastructure required to manage it effectively. Collaboration between policing, government and responsible technology providers is essential to ensure that the justice system keeps pace with the rapid growth of digital evidence. Within the next few years, automated redaction will not be viewed as innovation - but the baseline of operational capability. This conversation is particularly relevant as wider police reform considers how forces collaborate, share capabilities and manage resources more efficiently at regional and national levels. Digital evidence management and automated redaction are likely to become core capabilities within that evolving landscape.
Leanne Moorhouse is the Public Safety Lead at Pimloc, and previously served as the Body Worn Video (BWV) subject matter expert for the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC).