I didn't intend to suggest that "who recorded it" mattered (although the cameraman would normally have to give evidence about the filming) so that must be unintended ambiguity on my part. I am saying that proving the identity of an alleged offender is crucial to a prosecution and much more complicated than is often appreciated. Put another way, it must surely be one of the biggest potential loopholes on the market.
As a taste of the vital importance the criminal justice system accords to evidence of identification, there's an entire PACE Code of Practice dealing with it.
CODE D
Revised
Code of Practice for the identifcation of persons by Police Officers
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... d-2017.pdf
I think it's worth remembering that there's quite a growth industry in trading licence points and coming up with fanciful reasons for not supplying driver ID in response to the letters triggered by speed cameras etc. I'm no expert on speed cameras but I believe there's a growing use of cameras photographing the front of vehicles rather than the back to help combat this.
Re cameras used by patrolling police, there are different sorts. The diminishing numbers of "traffic" cars have sophisticated in-car cameras that record everything in high definition. The keenness displayed by police officers to detain the occupants of a fleeing vehicle, especially the driver, is directly related to the problems of subsequent ID (and things like administering an immediate breath test, of course.)
AIUI, body cameras are more to record an incident for the benefit of subsequent investigation of the officer's conduct.