If you tape a phone call, (which proves your point) is..
Discussion
I reckon that wouldn't be good enough to stand up in court. "May" be "monitored" does not necessarilly mean "may" be "recorded" and, even if it does intimate the call is beingrecorded, the caller still won't KNOW if THEIR call is being recorded.
This is different to the type of notification of recording given to a person being interviewed at a police station.
This is different to the type of notification of recording given to a person being interviewed at a police station.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 4th November 12:49
Eric Mc said:
I reckon that wouldn't be good enough to stand up in court. "May" be "monitored" does not necessarilly mean "may" be "recorded" and, even if it does intimate the call is beingrecorded, the caller still won't KNOW if THEIR call is being recorded.
This is different to the type of notification of recording given to a person being interviewed at a police station.
The other party didn't know/realize they were being recorded because they made comments they shouldn't have done, and have not helped themselves.This is different to the type of notification of recording given to a person being interviewed at a police station.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 4th November 12:49
Tony
Edited by Tony 1234 on Sunday 4th November 15:49
Tony 1234 said:
Eric Mc said:
I reckon that wouldn't be good enough to stand up in court. "May" be "monitored" does not necessarilly mean "may" be "recorded" and, even if it does intimate the call is beingrecorded, the caller still won't KNOW if THEIR call is being recorded.
This is different to the type of notification of recording given to a person being interviewed at a police station.
The other party didn't know/realize they were being recorded because they made comments they shouldn't have done, and have not helped themselves.This is different to the type of notification of recording given to a person being interviewed at a police station.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 4th November 12:49
Tony
Edited by Tony 1234 on Sunday 4th November 15:49
For example, in the run up to proceedings you have a revealing recording this can still be used in practical ways. For example, revealing that you have a recording of the conversation where they admitted A, B and C would mean that they will either have to be very ballsy or stupid to continue to court with the knowledge to win their case they will have to lie to the court and say that A, B and C never happened.
Whilst it is not strictly usable, I believe that in the circumstance there is an accusation of someone lying in court, I would feel that the court would allow it if the evidence was damning and obvious to the contrary.
There was a case a couple of years ago while someone of foreign decent was arrested and was dealt with heavyhandedly by police. In court the police deny everything - the solicitors then bring out the conversations recorded from the back of the police van on the arrested parties mobile phone...
If it were me I would be using it as a bargaining chip to not go to court, as the existance of such a recording would seriously weaken the other parties position.
Tony 1234 said:
Eric Mc said:
I reckon that wouldn't be good enough to stand up in court. "May" be "monitored" does not necessarilly mean "may" be "recorded" and, even if it does intimate the call is beingrecorded, the caller still won't KNOW if THEIR call is being recorded.
This is different to the type of notification of recording given to a person being interviewed at a police station.
The other party didn't know/realize they were being recorded because they made comments they shouldn't have done, and have not helped themselves.This is different to the type of notification of recording given to a person being interviewed at a police station.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 4th November 12:49
Tony
Edited by Tony 1234 on Sunday 4th November 15:49
LDNrevs said:
If they didn't know then what you did was illegal..
Um, no it's not. There are plenty of circumstances where it is legal to record your conversations without the other party knowing.For example, between private individuals, and also if a company calling called a private individual, that individual can record the conversation without having to notify the other party. However, companies would have to notify the other party if they made a recording they would later need to rely on.
JustinP1 said:
Whilst Eric is right, I think in practical ways it depend on the situation.
For example, in the run up to proceedings you have a revealing recording this can still be used in practical ways. For example, revealing that you have a recording of the conversation where they admitted A, B and C would mean that they will either have to be very ballsy or stupid to continue to court with the knowledge to win their case they will have to lie to the court and say that A, B and C never happened.
Whilst it is not strictly usable, I believe that in the circumstance there is an accusation of someone lying in court, I would feel that the court would allow it if the evidence was damning and obvious to the contrary.
I think it would depend on whether it was for criminal or civil proceedings. In civil proceedings, the evidential requirements aren't as steep. As you say, the court would weigh up the evidence on its merits. For example, in the run up to proceedings you have a revealing recording this can still be used in practical ways. For example, revealing that you have a recording of the conversation where they admitted A, B and C would mean that they will either have to be very ballsy or stupid to continue to court with the knowledge to win their case they will have to lie to the court and say that A, B and C never happened.
Whilst it is not strictly usable, I believe that in the circumstance there is an accusation of someone lying in court, I would feel that the court would allow it if the evidence was damning and obvious to the contrary.
A very good friend ('T') was the marketing director for quite a wealthy software company. He employed someone (I'll call him Glen) who ended up (within six months) as his boss; pack well and truly shuffled. He wasn't happy but carried on, albeit reluctantly.
One day Glen came to talk to T about what he thought of the way things had been handled, asking him what he thought of the person that was responsible for the changes. T referred to that person as a 'runt'
and that he needed shooting.
Glen was recording the conversation on a device he'd hidden in his pocket.
Disciplinary... suspension... fired; no references / severance / etc.
Employment lawyer stepped in and reminded the company's lawyers / HR that the tape-recording was not admissible in court, which is where they were intending to take the matter.
End result: out of court settlement + changed reason for end of employment to redundancy + severance + apology + confidentiality.
One day Glen came to talk to T about what he thought of the way things had been handled, asking him what he thought of the person that was responsible for the changes. T referred to that person as a 'runt'
and that he needed shooting. Glen was recording the conversation on a device he'd hidden in his pocket.
Disciplinary... suspension... fired; no references / severance / etc.
Employment lawyer stepped in and reminded the company's lawyers / HR that the tape-recording was not admissible in court, which is where they were intending to take the matter.
End result: out of court settlement + changed reason for end of employment to redundancy + severance + apology + confidentiality.
Tony 1234 said:
Yes, it's a Civil matter.
Thank's all
Tony
A court will more likely than not accept the hearing of a tape made in this way. The laws of evidence are very flexible in civil hearings and a court has a power to hear anything which may ensure the just nature of the proceedings.Thank's all
Tony
YTou sure about that? My view is its the same as an individual giving evidence in court against another stating what the other had said for say a libel/ planned criminal activity.
I'd also ensure that bridges are never burnt as you never know when you will meet said person again so never go into too much detail and personal (unless its a HR interview) instead be constructive
I'd also ensure that bridges are never burnt as you never know when you will meet said person again so never go into too much detail and personal (unless its a HR interview) instead be constructive
Welshbeef said:
YTou sure about that? My view is its the same as an individual giving evidence in court against another stating what the other had said for say a libel/ planned criminal activity.
If you mean me, then yes, I am pretty sure. Just because one party doesn't know it is being recorded does not make it inadmissable. Bear in mind if you make a telephone record and the other side doesn't, chances are your contemparaneous note will be accepted as the true version of events (for that reason I always suggest that you make a Word Document of any important telephone call as Word will log the creation date and time, and if the same day as the call......)You are talking about a hearsay type of situation I think, and in that case, again, the civil courts can and do allow hearsay, whilst a criminal trial is more likely than not going to exclude it, unless the witness can be cross examined.
Jasandjules said:
Tony 1234 said:
Yes, it's a Civil matter.
Thank's all
Tony
A court will more likely than not accept the hearing of a tape made in this way. The laws of evidence are very flexible in civil hearings and a court has a power to hear anything which may ensure the just nature of the proceedings.Thank's all
Tony
I wouldn't introduce the fact that there is a tape to the court unless the other party had blatantly lied about a fact.
Further to that though when the letters go back and forth between the parties before the court summons I would make it clear that a had the tape. If what was said was damning enough this would most likely avoid court altogether.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff