Vancouver Riot: Why E-Evidence May Not Be Enough

In the aftermath of the downtown Vancouver riots that took place after the Canucks’ Game 7 loss to the Boston Bruins on Wednesday, we all heard about how a social media movement took root, with angry and embarrassed Vancouverites posting images online, asking for and giving help in identifying perpetrators. The Facebook page “Vancouver Riot Pics: Post Your Photos“, started on Thursday, provides a site on which people can upload their riot photos. Vancouver police are now combing through more than one million photos and a thousand hours of video footage submitted as evidence following the Stanley Cup riot. But sometimes, a photo is just a photo.

Crown prosecutors and police are meeting today in Vancouver to talk about criminal charges stemming from the city’s riot. In spite of the deluge of potential, photographic evidence, so far, only about half a dozen people have been formally charged and it is uncertain how many others will be joining them.

Complications with the digital discovery process, or e-evidence, is that it can be difficult to prove the authentication of digital evidence. Before they will accept digital evidence as evidence, generally, a court would have to determine if the evidence is relevant, authentic, if it is hearsay and whether a copy is acceptable or the original is required.

Under the Canada Evidence Act, §342, ”A person who wants to admit an electronic document as evidence has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to be.”

Michael Shapray, a criminal lawyer, told CTV that ”I would think that the police would want to gather as much information about the people submitting the photo and videos as they can, because in a court of law, you have to be able to call a witness who took a video or took a picture.”

In Vancouver’s case, many of the photos were submitted anonymously, a fact which would make gathering as much information about photo and video submitters very difficult. This could severely hamper a prosecutor’s case.

This is, however, not to say that Vancouver’s digital evidence serves no purpose.  Videos and photos of the riot are potential evidence. But a photo of someone smashing a store front window or setting a police car ablaze, by itself, may not be sufficient to stand up to court scrutiny, even if the person(s) can be identified. Prosecutors will want the evidence to be substantiated, likely by the person who submitted the evidence, to prove its authenticity.

So if you really want to help see justice done, aside from helping police identify potential perpetrators, remember to own up to your photographic evidence.