Suspended from work, and I'm innocent.

WhiteHorse

patman99 wrote: »

If there was no need to inform anyone you were about to record the conversation you are just about to have with them, then customer service centres would not bother with the 'this call may be recorded....' bit when you phone them.

No - this is because of the Telecommunications Act. A face-to-face conversation can be recorded without warning.

Criminal cases routinely use intercepts as evidence. Employment tribunals can choose to refuse to admit them, although may be unwise to do if they disclose significant facts which will come out later.

SarEl

patman99 wrote: »

SarEl is/was an employment Lawyer (if I remember correctly), her advice re the recording of a conversation for use as evidence is correct. To be admissable, the interviewer must make the interviewee aware that a recording is being made. This is why secret recordings on shows such as 'Rogue Traders' and 'Saints and scroungers' are never submitted as evidence (although they are broadcast on TV).

If there was no need to inform anyone you were about to record the conversation you are just about to have with them, then customer service centres would not bother with the 'this call may be recorded....' bit when you phone them.

This is certainly true. The reality is that whilst such recordings are unlawful unless declared, some courts may accept transcripts of them (but they do not have to) - but that still does not make them lawful recordings. depending on the circumstances, they may be a breach of a vraiety of laws about telecommunications or human rights. But few people can afford to, or would sue (unless they happen to be rich and feature on twitter a lot).

And yes, a barrister.

SarEl

WhiteHorse wrote: »

No - this is because of the Telecommunications Act. A face-to-face conversation can be recorded without warning.

Criminal cases routinely use intercepts as evidence. Employment tribunals can choose to refuse to admit them, although may be unwise to do if they disclose significant facts which will come out later.

Criminal cases routinely use intercepts where a warrant has been obtained. No warrant and it becomes illegally obtained evidence. And inadmissable.

vax2002

SarEl wrote: »

This is total rubbish. There is no such calculation in employment tribunals.

Never said there was ? however there is a very good guide of what people have received and an average calculation of those awards, but you will already have access to such information.

WhiteHorse

SarEl wrote: »

... unlawfully recorded conversatioons from third parties ...

Such a recording would not be unlawful unless taken without warning whilst using a telecommunication device.

... who have been entrapped ...

There is no such thing as entrapment in the law of England and Wales.

WhiteHorse

SarEl wrote: »

And inadmissable.

No - a judge may admit if it seems appropriate to do so. Without prejudice correspondence similarly.

Sambucus_Nigra

I think a few people are on the crack juice tonight...

SarEl

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Such a recording would not be unlawful unless taken without warning whilst using a telecommunication device. Yes - it would


There is no such thing as entrapment in the law of England and Wales Yes, there is - it is enshrined in case law.

And now I am going to put you on my ignore list because you are wasting my time.

WhiteHorse

SarEl wrote: »

And now I am going to put you on my ignore list because you are wasting my time.

Hmmm. Can't handle people who disagree with you, obviously.

Case law - cite it.

mountainofdebt

OP

Hopefully you can tell which pearls of wisdom you should listen to and which 'pearls' you should ignore.