POLICE have defended the use of bodycams after a report said no evidence had been provided to suggest they had produced an upturn in criminal convictions.

The civil liberties and privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch said that both police and the CPS were unable to show how many guilty pleas or convictions have been obtained based on footage from the technology.

Its survey revealed that £22m had been spent on so-called body-worn cameras, but problems had been reported with them in some instances.

The report also raised concerns about data protection in respect of the recorded footage and citizens’ personal data being left vulnerable.

Some cameras also did not feature a front facing screen to show an individual when the camera was on them.

Body-worn cameras have been enthusiastically adopted by Durham Police in particular, which now has 1,100 cameras at a cost of £49,050.

In 2014, Durham’s Police and Crime Commissioner Ron Hogg said they would “promote public reassurance, capture best evidence, prevent harm and deter people from committing crime and anti-social behaviour”.

But recent figures showed anti-social behaviour is rocketing in some parts of the county – up 70 per cent in Darlington alone.

Durham Police said the cameras were more than just a tool for securing convictions.

A spokesman for Durham Constabulary said: “The use of body-worn footage is one of the ways we can help prevent and detect crime.

“Footage is not just used to secure convictions, but forms part of a wider intelligence package designed to keep our communities safe.

“Footage is also used through our Checkpoint programme, which aims to lead individuals away from a potential life of crime.

“This has proven particularly successful when dealing with offences caused by people who are drunk and therefore can find it difficult to remember what they have done.

“Playing the footage back to them the next day has a very sobering affect and as part of the programme they are offered help to tackle issues around alcohol.”

The spokesman added: “As a force we have carried out a privacy impact assessment on the use of such footage, which is held on secure systems.

“We also have a specific policy on the use of body-worn cameras and all officers deployed with the technology have been trained in how such information should be captured and handled. This is regularly monitored to ensure policy is complied with.”

Cleveland Police, which has 100 cameras at a cost of £57,000 for use by frontline officers, said there had been a number of cases in the county which had benefited from body worn video evidence.

A spokeswoman said: “Body worn video provides an additional option for officers to gather evidence at incidents and it is a tool to demonstrate transparency and accountability.

“The cameras record audio and video which gives officers an immediate and exact record of anything they are dealing with as well as the effects that an incident can have on a victim and others present at the time.”

The force said use of the cameras should be “proportionate, legitimate, necessary and justifiable” and all recorded footage was subject to legal safeguards and if not used as evidence automatically deleted after 31 days.

North Yorkshire said it had 38 cameras, but did not respond to other aspects of the survey.

Last year it said it was considering rolling out to the technology to all frontline and firearms officers.

No information was forthcoming from Northumbria Police in respect of the survey.