voice recording evidence

[jonosd]

some of you may remember my post a short while ago about a problem with a psychotic ex gf who falsley cried rape and then decided to key my car.anyways i managed to get a confession out of her admitting everything over the phone, which i was recording on a spare phone i had with a voice recorder.the only problem with the recording is the volume. if i turn it up on full u can make out what shes saying its just not all that clear and u do have to hold the speaker right up to your ear.is there any way i could clear up the quality and get the volume up a bit without distorting? for example with a program on a pc? secondly would the fact i had technically altered the recording make it inadmissble as evidence? due to the fact it had been 'tampered' with.thanks in advance

[Mickey]

I am certainly no legal expert on this, however im pretty sure it would not be admissable evidence, my reasons for stating this are as follows,

A unless she has said quite clearly that she is who you say she is then it could have been anyone you were recording, barmy as it sounds im sure thats what i have heard in the past

B the fact the tape has been tampered with does not deem well neither

However dont take my word for it wait till the legal beagles give you a more decisive answer, oh and good luck

[VinnyP!]

Keep the original unmolested in a durable form. You really should have burnt it onto some kind of WORM like a CD-R as soon as possible. Then feel free to try and enhance it but really that's a job best left to an independent expert since they will not have an agenda and so the evidence will carry more weight. As for the voice your evidence will be that it's your ex. You can give that evidence it's up to a jury if they believe you. Voice recognition evidence is like handwriting pretty pants in the real world

[Dr M]

Keep it as evidence. If the comments she made were unsolicited, then they would be addmissable as evidence. The recording would however have to stand up to a challange in court, but this is no different to any other form of evidence.
At the moment, it is only the state that cannot use certain phone tap evidence, although there are moves afoot to change this.

[Jollygood]

jonosd...is there a case currently reported against, being investigated or court proceedings pending? If there is or are then your solicitor should deal with this evidence if it contains an admission that the allegations originally made against you were false.

[oldcodger]

I agree with Vinny and DrM. There should be no major problem getting a tape admitted as evidence. The defence will almost certainly challenge the ID of the caller, but if the tape refers to specific incidents within the knowledge of the alleged caller and not commonly known, they will struggle.

[Malky]

"i managed to get a confession out of her admitting everything over the phone, which i was recording on a spare phone i had with a voice recorder."

I think that you will find, that without a court order or home office approval to record her voice, without her knowledge or consent, you are on a NON-Starter. You must give her notice that you intend to record her voice prior to doing so, so she has the knowledge and the right to control what she actually says.
There is info on the web re this subject.
If you do not give her notice, then you have to explain to any court you are appearing in why you did not aford her the knowledge of there being sound recording equipment in use at the time of any conversation taking place. The court, in all likleyhood will rule that the recording(s) are inadmissable.
If you just think of basic calls to most customer services of banks etc. They will in all probability state that "you should be aware that your call may be recorded for training purposes". That is their legal get out if you become nasty over the phone to them.

Regards

Malky

[fatboyjim154]

From the OFCOM site
The 3rd party bit excludes criminal investigations where it may prove innocence IIRC.


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...qs/prvfaq3.htm

Can I record telephone conversations on my home phone?

Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, ie someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For further information see the Home Office website where RIPA is posted.

Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me?

No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording

Jim

[VinnyP!]

"i managed to get a confession out of her admitting everything over the phone, which i was recording on a spare phone i had with a voice recorder."

I think that you will find, that without a court order or home office approval to record her voice, without her knowledge or consent, you are on a NON-Starter. You must give her notice that you intend to record her voice prior to doing so, so she has the knowledge and the right to control what she actually says.
There is info on the web re this subject.
If you do not give her notice, then you have to explain to any court you are appearing in why you did not aford her the knowledge of there being sound recording equipment in use at the time of any conversation taking place. The court, in all likleyhood will rule that the recording(s) are inadmissable.

Happens all the time there is only the need for the consent of ONE party. You can never get a court order or permission from the home office to intercept a phone call without consent. This is not interception since it's not in the course of it's transmission. Only the home secretary can authorise that and it's never admissable in court. Technically you may breach the licence of the telecommunications system, revealing it to the court could also be a civil tort but that's not a criminal offence. A court MAY hold that the recording was unfairly obtained if they do and they decide that it's probative value is outweighed by it's prejudice then they will exclude it. The actual words of the accused are seldom excluded.

[Jollygood]

SMS text messages are used in evidence all the time, particularly in cases of threat, blackmail, rape, harassmment, perventing the course of justice etc... Permission is not sought to use the text/s as evidence from the party that sent the text/s.

[Malky]

"Happens all the time there is only the need for the consent of ONE party. You can never get a court order or permission from the home office to intercept a phone call without consent. This is not interception since it's not in the course of it's transmission. Only the home secretary can authorise that and it's never admissable in court. Technically you may breach the licence of the telecommunications system, revealing it to the court could also be a civil tort but that's not a criminal offence. A court MAY hold that the recording was unfairly obtained if they do and they decide that it's probative value is outweighed by it's prejudice then they will exclude it. The actual words of the accused are seldom excluded."

If the use is allowable, then what has happened to the "entrapment laws"?

Regards

Malky

[VinnyP!]

"Happens all the time there is only the need for the consent of ONE party. You can never get a court order or permission from the home office to intercept a phone call without consent. This is not interception since it's not in the course of it's transmission. Only the home secretary can authorise that and it's never admissable in court. Technically you may breach the licence of the telecommunications system, revealing it to the court could also be a civil tort but that's not a criminal offence. A court MAY hold that the recording was unfairly obtained if they do and they decide that it's probative value is outweighed by it's prejudice then they will exclude it. The actual words of the accused are seldom excluded."
If the use is allowable, then what has happened to the "entrapment laws"?

Malky

New law on me?

[Malky]

As already shown above, recording without permission or knowlege of the second party is legal, but disclosure to a thrid party is not.

"Then the argument would be that the Defendant’s Article 8 rights (right to privacy) had been violated by an unlawful operation and though he/she could receive a fair trial it would not be fair to admit the evidence in the face of such serious violations; see R v Button [2005] EWCA Crim 516, 4th March 2005."

Regards

Malky

[Jollygood]

As already shown above, recording without permission or knowlege of the second party is legal, but disclosure to a thrid party is not.

"Then the argument would be that the Defendant’s Article 8 rights (right to privacy) had been violated by an unlawful operation and though he/she could receive a fair trial it would not be fair to admit the evidence in the face of such serious violations; see R v Button [2005] EWCA Crim 516, 4th March 2005."

Regards

Malky

Malky, got a bit lost here, sorry, but I cannot see what you are driving at and how this case supports automatically barring of disclosure? The Appeal Case is about whether the early court had erred in law, in other words acted unlawfully, in allowing evidence following consideration of Article 8, but not the impact of Article 6. The evidence being considered was from a public authority, namely the Police, [that had obtained a recording which was said to be unlawfully obtained and in doing so breached the defendant's human rights when allowed in evdience] and not a private individual. Are you saying private individuals have obligations encumbent under RIPA?

The evidence, a recording by the Police, in this instance, was disclosed at court allowed by the Trial Judge. The Court of Appeal approved the decision of the early admittance into evidence and rejected the plaintiff's appeal against conviction.

The Appeal court makes it clear "In performing this task it must act fairly and article 6 and section 78 of PACE set the standards by which it must proceed." The implication here is that Artcile 6 and 78 PACE "march hand-in-hand"; the latter phase, if my memory serves me correctly, was enunciated by Lord Nichols in the Appeal case of R .v. Khan (Sultan) 1996.

How does that make a voice recording by a private individual automatically inadmissible for disclosure?

[VinnyP!]

As already shown above, recording without permission or knowlege of the second party is legal, but disclosure to a thrid party is not.

"Then the argument would be that the Defendant’s Article 8 rights (right to privacy) had been violated by an unlawful operation and though he/she could receive a fair trial it would not be fair to admit the evidence in the face of such serious violations; see R v Button [2005] EWCA Crim 516, 4th March 2005."

Regards

Malky

Not sure how this relates to entrapment we have no laws about that? As for HRA it doesn't apply to an individual only the state.

However even if this was the state the above argument failed even in respect of the state. This was upheld in Elhai Vs UK 2006 which is the latest authority that an Article 8 breach does not mean that evidence automatically should not be admitted.

[spinlondon]

You can record phone conversations, as long as one of the parties is aware of the recording. As you are one of the parties, then that is ok.
Also, there is nothing preventing evidence obtained illegally from being used in Court.