In R. v. Ahmed, 2021 ONSC 2141 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), the defendant was charged with murder arising out of a shooting in an Ottawa nightclub. He admitted shooting the deceased but claimed that he acted in self defence and lacked the necessary intent for murder. Presentation and expert analysis of the video obtained from the nightclub’s DVR formed an important part of the prosecution’s case as the video provided a neutral depiction of the event.

The Expert Evidence 

The main purpose of the forensic video analyst’s evidence was to present the video evidence in a way that allowed counsel and the court to gain as much objective information about the event as possible. The analyst testified that the nightclub’s DVR had the capacity for sixteen cameras and that fifteen of them were operable at the relevant times. The analyst created a scale diagram of the nightclub that showed the location of the cameras and the approximate coverage area for each camera. He reported the frame rate for the video recordings to be thirty frames per second. The analyst showed a frame by frame visual presentation which matched views from two synchronized cameras that showed key events. The synchronized images were shown side by side. The analyst also applied a spotlight effect to certain areas of the images to improve visualization. These relatively basic analytical steps were helpful as it allowed counsel and the court to better understand the video evidence. 

In cross examination, the analyst was questioned on the impact of compression on image accuracy and interpretation. He acknowledged that compression could affect the level of detail that might be visible in an image. Further, he noted that not all images shown in the frame by frame presentation were intra frames, meaning that not all activity occurring in front of the camera was necessarily fully captured by the recording (as some of the images were predictive). He was questioned about the impact of motion blur in lower definition videos and stated that objects in motion can appear blurred due to insufficient lighting and a reduced image refresh rate. He agreed that a bottle, which the video showed was used by the deceased during the incident, displayed evidence of motion blur. Despite these issues, the analyst stated that frame by frame analysis has value, though it is also important to observe a series of frames and to view them backwards to gain maximum interpretive value from the images. 

Analysis 

Ahmed is not a precedent setting case. It is not an appellate level decision. It does not change the law in any way. This case is what I refer to as an example case, one that has epistemic and legal value even though it does not involve complex analytical work or discoveries. There was no opposing expert, nor did the defence challenge the admissibility of the video evidence or the method in which it was presented by the analyst. There was some topical questioning about compression and image accuracy. In the end, no legal dispute arose, no case law was cited, and the trial judge was not required to make any legal ruling. However, cases like this are valuable because they stand as examples where trial judges have admitted expert evidence by forensic video analysts and have inferentially approved of the methodology utilized. They help to preserve the general status quo and provide momentum for moving forward. Cases like Ahmed are helpful when counsel needs precedent to argue that the type of analysis conducted therein is routinely done, non-controversial, and has been admitted by other judges. This case and others like it serve as important building blocks for future cases.