Recorded phone calls - admissible?

robatwork

I know this isn't exactly a legal forum but it's the closest thing we have.

I heard a consumer radio program today where the caller was advised by the presenter he could record a phone call "for his own note taking" without advising the other party. If he advised the other party he was recording, only then would that recording be admissible if it went to court.

This was a consumer legal dispute so we are talking about a civil case in the county court (small claim).

I've heard differing opinions on this so can someone well versed in (consumer) law give a view on if you can use an "unannounced" recording of a conversation between 2 parties - where one of them is the litigant and the other the defendant - as evidence?

user1977

According to this, they're generally admissible.

The warning that "calls may be recorded..." is a regulatory one which businesses are meant to abide by, but consumers can record the call from their end without notifying the other party.

powerful_Rogue

I was always under the impression that if you had a recording that you hand't told the other person about, if going to court you could make a transcript of the call and then advise that the actual call recording is also available.

Undervalued

I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer to this.

In an employment tribunal, for example, the decision on whether to admit a transcript from a secret recording is very much down to the judge to decide in the context of the case. Decisions, both for and against, have been upheld on appeal.

I don't know for certain about other types of civil case but, presumably, some decisions must have been appealed and precedents set?

DullGreyGuy

Ultimately it's a judges decision if evidence is admisable or not and what weight they place on the evidence if they do accept it. 

https://lexlaw.co.uk/solicitors-london/recorded-conversations-court-admissibility-evidence-confidentiality-disclosure-legal-advice/

user1977

Undervalued said:

In an employment tribunal, for example, the decision on whether to admit a transcript from a secret recording is very much down to the judge to decide in the context of the case.

If you mean e.g. a covert recording in a workplace, I expect the considerations will be different from, say, a phone call between a consumer and a business's phone line, where it's going to be more reasonable to expect that one or both parties may have recorded the call. 

Mr.Generous

It's a strange one really as courts want to get to the truth, and a recording is pretty much that!! In employment terms the employer wants their notes to be the definitive record of the meeting - if they are factual and accurate then why would they not want the recording to confirm that??

From a business point of view youd have to say the same thing, the party that doesn't want an accurate record available to be used is probably the one with something to hide.

Jenni_D

As others have mentioned in previous, similar threads ... if you call a company and they play a message saying that calls may be recorded, then that works both ways - you can also record the call and use as evidence if necessary.

No idea if this has ever been tested in court, but it seems logical.  

user1977

Jenni_D said:

As others have mentioned in previous, similar threads ... if you call a company and they play a message saying that calls may be recorded, then that works both ways - you can also record the call and use as evidence if necessary.

No idea if this has ever been tested in court, but it seems logical.  

It's nonsense really, and in any event you don't need their permission to record the call.

Jenni_D

user1977 said:

Jenni_D said:

As others have mentioned in previous, similar threads ... if you call a company and they play a message saying that calls may be recorded, then that works both ways - you can also record the call and use as evidence if necessary.

No idea if this has ever been tested in court, but it seems logical.  

It's nonsense really, and in any event you don't need their permission to record the call.

The issue here isn't the recording though - it's the using of any recording.  

Undervalued

Jenni_D said:

user1977 said:

Jenni_D said:

As others have mentioned in previous, similar threads ... if you call a company and they play a message saying that calls may be recorded, then that works both ways - you can also record the call and use as evidence if necessary.

No idea if this has ever been tested in court, but it seems logical.  

It's nonsense really, and in any event you don't need their permission to record the call.

The issue here isn't the recording though - it's the using of any recording.  

Quite.

It is perfectly lawful to covertly record any conversation you are party to. However there may be civil remedies available to the other party if the recording is "published" without their consent.

Recording a conversation you are not part of (i.e "bugging") may be a criminal offence under some circumstances.