Would you like to be recorded whilst working?

[longdogs]

I couldn't care less as long as they can digitise a smaller nose on me for side shots

There are special panoramic lenses these days you know.

 

[JBR]

I thought that covertly recorded conversations were not admissible in court. That's what my union rep. told me when, as a teacher, I secretly recorded a parent I knew had been lying about me and making false accusations.

They are not.
Pre-divorce and I used to covertly record arguments with a view to using them as evidence. When I showed them to my solicitor she was horrified and said they would not be admissible and may count against my case. I asked if I could speak to a senior divorce solicitor and after a bit of stalling she agreed. I showed her boss and gave her my reasons for doing so. She agreed they are not admissible but said if I kept the recordings in a safe place, i.e. their offices, after making verbatim transcripts of the 'conversations', we could show the other party what evidence we had and it may help to strengthen our case for an out of court settlement. As it was I never got chance to use them so don't know what the result may have been.

It occurs to me that whilst covertly recorded sound conversations are not admissible in court, covertly recorded video footage is. Video recordings by police of speeding motorists and video recordings of shoplifters in stores are two examples of this and, to the best of my knowledge, these have been used to prove guilt.
Now why should video be OK and sound unacceptable?

 

[big-all]

voice recordings are only a series off sounds words or comments where the meaning may or may not be an action or what may or may not happen or has happened
images by there nature are what is actually happening so far more reliable

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think the distinction is 'covert'.


That is why all the CCTV warning signs are there and you are told about the recordings.

 

[Belboz]

Covert recordings may be used in criminal court dependant on the circumstances of the case. All evidence (including video, audio, telephone intercepts etc.) can be admissible if the court rules as such and provided it meets certain criteria. Video recordings such as those you mention are made far easier to admit as evidence because (a) it is not directed surveillance [i.e. not targeted] and (b) [as EFLI states] the fact you are being recorded is published in advance (by signs and/or oral warning)

The decision rests with the judge or magistrate. It will be based on the fairness to the defendant(s) and the interests of justice as balanced against statutory regulations and Article 8 (ECHR -privacy)

The Civil Courts and the professional conduct bodies have somewhat different views on such admissibility.

 

[JBR]

Sounds a bit hit and miss to me!

 

[noseall]

Sounds a bit hit and miss to me!

Grey areas eh.

I wish that the people in charge of ambiguity would make their minds up!

 

[45yearsagasman]

when I was jetting his manholes,

Is that a euphemism

 

[longdogs]

when I was jetting his manholes,

Is that a euphemism

when did Julian Clary join the forum?