Recorded phone calls - admissible?

Undervalued

Mr.Generous said:

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.

The argument is that the person making the secret recording has an advantage as only they know it is being recorded. Also, it may only present part of the story. For example, the person intending to record may go out of their way to antagonise the other party before starting to record and would know to take a reasonable tone from that point onwards.

There is no absolute answer which is why it is down to the judge.

Manxman_in_exile

My understanding was that (1) there is nothing generally wrong with recording a conversation that you are present at or that you are a party* to, so long as you intend to use it for your own use and do not intend to publish it, and (2) there is no reason why it should not be admissible in subsequent court proceedings, except insofar as the judge has wide discretion anyway as to what evidence to allow.

I believe the usual advice is to make a written transcript of the conversation and to use that in evidence, with the understanding that an audio recording exists that will confirm the accuracy and content of the transcript.

There is nothing, after all, to prevent somebody taking a verbatim note of a meeting (or whatever) and using it in subsequent court proceedings.  Why would it matter that that verbatim note comes from a contemporaneous audio recording and is not a contemporaneous note itself?  I also don't see why a permanent recorded record of a conversation should be any less admissible than a permanent written record (eg letter or email).

And isn't there a general rule of evidence that you should use the best evidence available of whatever you are trying to establish?  What could be better than a recording?

Specifically regarding consumer matters, the CAG positively advises consumers to record ALL 'phone conversations to avoid subsequent confusion and "he said, she said" situations:  Guidance note - Dealing with Customer Service Departments - or making telephone contracts - General consumer tips and guidance - Consumer Action Group.  And I think I've heard the same advice on LBC's consumer hour.

But at the end of the day it's up to a judge what they will or won't allow.  They have wide discretion.  However, as we live in a world of consumer protection, I think it would be a bold judge these days who disallowed the use of a consumer's recording against a big retailer.


*I believe if you record a conversation that you are either not present at or are not a party to, that that is a criminal offence.

user1977

Manxman_in_exile said:

*I believe if you record a conversation that you are either not present at or are not a party to, that that is a criminal offence.

Not necessarily, covert recordings can be permissible (e.g. an employer investigating fraud by employees) but more hoops to jump through.