Recording for evidence
Discussion
I'll give an exact description of the scene:
My Partner (Senior Nurse)
PALS Rep (Patient liason service)
Patient Family members
Solicitor acting upon their behalf.
My partner was asked if she consented to being recorded , which she took RCN and Management advice on and declined, verbally and in writing, giving 4 copies, one to each involved stating the date and times of the objection and those present. She feels the interview was recorded anyway as one of the family members kept looking at their phone, and the one placed on the table at the start of the discussion was not moved or touched.
She verbally asked and stated that she did not give consent to a recorded interview (which turned out to be an interrogation from both the family and the brief) and gave "no comment" on many questions, then was cajoled into being told that "no comment" could be construed as an admission of guilt in court, by the brief.
She then ended the interview and discussion on the grounds that she felt stressed.
As a result I've got a stressed out partner who feels that what she said (or didn't) might lose her the job she loves or get her in trouble.
The semantics are for those in higher positions to decide, she is most concerned about the family or brief going to the local rag and making her the scapegoat before the investigation has concluded, despite her not giving consent to being recorded.
Any advice welcome.
TIA
Pete
My Partner (Senior Nurse)
PALS Rep (Patient liason service)
Patient Family members
Solicitor acting upon their behalf.
My partner was asked if she consented to being recorded , which she took RCN and Management advice on and declined, verbally and in writing, giving 4 copies, one to each involved stating the date and times of the objection and those present. She feels the interview was recorded anyway as one of the family members kept looking at their phone, and the one placed on the table at the start of the discussion was not moved or touched.
She verbally asked and stated that she did not give consent to a recorded interview (which turned out to be an interrogation from both the family and the brief) and gave "no comment" on many questions, then was cajoled into being told that "no comment" could be construed as an admission of guilt in court, by the brief.
She then ended the interview and discussion on the grounds that she felt stressed.
As a result I've got a stressed out partner who feels that what she said (or didn't) might lose her the job she loves or get her in trouble.
The semantics are for those in higher positions to decide, she is most concerned about the family or brief going to the local rag and making her the scapegoat before the investigation has concluded, despite her not giving consent to being recorded.
Any advice welcome.
TIA
Pete
Edited by texaxile on Friday 29th September 20:44
IANAL, but if she declined being interviewed, then suspected she was being recorded, why carry on? Why not simply state I had declined for the interview to be recorded and I suspect I am being recorded anyway, and I feel my interview will be under distress and simply don't want to continue, they are not the police They cannot simply force a interview.
Again IANAL or armchair expert. Just casting a outside view.
Again IANAL or armchair expert. Just casting a outside view.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 29th September 22:37
ReaderScars said:
I'm pretty sure what they've done is illegal. I would be contacting the police to see about having the devices seized, seeing as the recording took place on private property and against express consent.
Quite so.And surely if you have said you do not give permission for recording to occur and it does anyway that is not admissible?
Also she should have had her own solicitor there by the sounds of it.
Hopefully she is OK. If she's done no wrong then it'll probably be fine.
One would assume that there was a recording of the interview. Someone must have been taking notes. These are admissible in evidence in all probability.
Sorry if I missed something, but what was the interview concerning? If the 'other side' had legal representation, why didn't your partner?
Is it possible to demand that the question and answer session be written, the questions supplied to your partner and the replies submitted to the other party? If she feels she was interrogated rather than questioned and she believed she was being recorded despite her demand not to be, then that could be justification. If she felt intimidated then that too could be used as a reason for the request.
Any ambiguities could be cleared up in another written question/answer procedure.
If they demand a face to face, ask why.
Why do you think she might lose her job?
This does not appear to be a discipline procedure, rather a case for damages. Is this so?
Some professions are required to give 'duty statements' but beyond that is there any reason for your partner to cooperate?
Sorry if I missed something, but what was the interview concerning? If the 'other side' had legal representation, why didn't your partner?
Is it possible to demand that the question and answer session be written, the questions supplied to your partner and the replies submitted to the other party? If she feels she was interrogated rather than questioned and she believed she was being recorded despite her demand not to be, then that could be justification. If she felt intimidated then that too could be used as a reason for the request.
Any ambiguities could be cleared up in another written question/answer procedure.
If they demand a face to face, ask why.
Why do you think she might lose her job?
This does not appear to be a discipline procedure, rather a case for damages. Is this so?
Some professions are required to give 'duty statements' but beyond that is there any reason for your partner to cooperate?
Thanks for the replies so far.
She was instructed to take the interview despite her concerns by the PALS rep and her line manager, which requests she had witnessed in front of her RCN rep.
Reading between the lines, it was probably better to have an "interview" instead of point blank refusing from the PALS p.o.v.
She was instructed to take the interview despite her concerns by the PALS rep and her line manager, which requests she had witnessed in front of her RCN rep.
Reading between the lines, it was probably better to have an "interview" instead of point blank refusing from the PALS p.o.v.
sorry some replies came in after my previous and I'll respond accordingly:
No brief was present on behalf of the NHS. They don't call in a lawyer on PALS meetings. The RCN Rep was at the behest of my partner.
It was recorded by way of written minutes by the PALS and RCN Rep, the objection to any video or recording was noted.
Derek, in answer to your questions,
It was "sprung" upon her, the solicitor was allowed by PALS under the pretence of it being a "family friend"and it is concerning the welfare of a patient under NHS care and seems to be a case of gathering evidence for damages.
She was told it was a "face to face" to put some concerns of the Family at rest with "a witness" to ensure everything was above board.
She is concerned about losing her job or position because of her objecting to being recorded, hence she might have something to hide. Daft I know, but kind of logical.
No brief was present on behalf of the NHS. They don't call in a lawyer on PALS meetings. The RCN Rep was at the behest of my partner.
It was recorded by way of written minutes by the PALS and RCN Rep, the objection to any video or recording was noted.
Derek, in answer to your questions,
It was "sprung" upon her, the solicitor was allowed by PALS under the pretence of it being a "family friend"and it is concerning the welfare of a patient under NHS care and seems to be a case of gathering evidence for damages.
She was told it was a "face to face" to put some concerns of the Family at rest with "a witness" to ensure everything was above board.
She is concerned about losing her job or position because of her objecting to being recorded, hence she might have something to hide. Daft I know, but kind of logical.
Edited by texaxile on Friday 29th September 21:15
texaxile said:
sorry some replies came in after my previous and I'll respond accordingly:
No brief was present on behalf of the NHS. They don't call in a lawyer on PALS meetings. The RCN Rep was at the behest of my partner.
It was recorded by way of written minutes by the PALS and RCN Rep, the objection to any video or recording was noted.
Derek, in answer to your questions,
It was "sprung" upon her, the solicitor was allowed by PALS under the pretence of it being a "family friend"and it is concerning the welfare of a patient under NHS care and seems to be a case of gathering evidence for damages.
She was told it was a "face to face" to put some concerns of the Family at rest with "a witness" to ensure everything was above board.
She is concerned about losing her job or position because of her objecting to being recorded, hence she might have something to hide. Daft I know, but kind of logical.
I doubt this is a serious matter for your partner. However, here is my advice. No brief was present on behalf of the NHS. They don't call in a lawyer on PALS meetings. The RCN Rep was at the behest of my partner.
It was recorded by way of written minutes by the PALS and RCN Rep, the objection to any video or recording was noted.
Derek, in answer to your questions,
It was "sprung" upon her, the solicitor was allowed by PALS under the pretence of it being a "family friend"and it is concerning the welfare of a patient under NHS care and seems to be a case of gathering evidence for damages.
She was told it was a "face to face" to put some concerns of the Family at rest with "a witness" to ensure everything was above board.
She is concerned about losing her job or position because of her objecting to being recorded, hence she might have something to hide. Daft I know, but kind of logical.
Edited by texaxile on Friday 29th September 21:15
I’d suggest your partner should make notes of the interview, whilst it should be of what she said, she should also include the circumstances of the instructions to have the interview, against her better judgement. The nature of the discussion, especially with example of where she felt under pressure. Why she refused to answer some of the questions. To put it bluntly, every bloody thing.
Take time and consider the contents. It should be her feelings, emotions, reaction to the tone of the interview, etc. If asked why she made this record she can point to you receiving such advice online and encouraging her to do so as such notes made immediately after interviews can be useful.
It seems your partner is concerned about discipline. I don’t know what she can be accused of, but cover the points. If it is solely about being recorded, then tell her to put down why. They may be considered unusual reasons but they would be hers.
As I said, include everything.
If she should follow this advice then include why she felt this advice to be good advice. Don't tell anyone of the notes made.
I’ve been involved in a number of discipline cases: as prosecutor, as originator, as witness for the prosecution and the defence, and, unfortunately, once on the other side of a rather serious case where I was the defendant. Notes can be extremely helpful in such cases, especially the little points that are so easily forgotten.
Then, once it is recorded, forget all about it. Sufficient unto the day and all that.
One point: if she felt that her wishes for the interview not to be recorded were being ignored, then include this and why.
texaxile said:
She was instructed to take the interview despite her concerns by the PALS rep and her line manager, which requests she had witnessed in front of her RCN rep.
Reading between the lines, it was probably better to have an "interview" instead of point blank refusing from the PALS p.o.v.
MRDA!Reading between the lines, it was probably better to have an "interview" instead of point blank refusing from the PALS p.o.v.
The P in PALS is significant. It doesn't exist to help NHS staff, so hardly unbiased.
At what point was your partner aware that the 'family friend' was a solicitor?*
If it were me and I had any inkling thereof that would be the point at which the 'interview' ended forthwith.
* Was her line manager aware of this? If so, he/she hasn't done your partner any favours.
The mobile phone situation is also disturbing. All that were in the room, whether on display or not, should have been verified as switched off.
Thanks again for the advice gents.
Derek, your detailed points are most helpful, AY and RS, thanks.
It's been a sleepless night for us, I've shown her the replies here and wants to give you all a hug!.
We've noted down a timeline and sequence of events and she will be in touch with the Union Rep and HR as a follow up. I have told her not to worry. This has never happened to her before and she feels that she was put in a position against her will. Red Devil, as you are probably aware mate, it's not the first or last time PALS has thrown a lamb to the slaughter, as long as their own backs are covered it seems they are happy.
Regarding the solicitor, it transpires that no one was aware of him, he was apparently there as an independent "witness" however, the impression my partner was given was that her line manager was aware, but she (the manager) claimed that she wasn't, or if she was, she was not admitting it.
With hindsight, my partner with the support of the RCN rep should have halted the meeting. The PALs rep did not voice any objections and this will be part of the follow up.
Derek, your detailed points are most helpful, AY and RS, thanks.
It's been a sleepless night for us, I've shown her the replies here and wants to give you all a hug!.
We've noted down a timeline and sequence of events and she will be in touch with the Union Rep and HR as a follow up. I have told her not to worry. This has never happened to her before and she feels that she was put in a position against her will. Red Devil, as you are probably aware mate, it's not the first or last time PALS has thrown a lamb to the slaughter, as long as their own backs are covered it seems they are happy.
Regarding the solicitor, it transpires that no one was aware of him, he was apparently there as an independent "witness" however, the impression my partner was given was that her line manager was aware, but she (the manager) claimed that she wasn't, or if she was, she was not admitting it.
With hindsight, my partner with the support of the RCN rep should have halted the meeting. The PALs rep did not voice any objections and this will be part of the follow up.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff