|
|
Posted by Nigel Brooks on 07/11/06 21:53
"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
news:c3p7b2l4lbuc53tt2hvc1b5mcvnladlfkn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:39:49 -0500, "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual
>>recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no
>>blanket authorization or prohibition.
>
> If it's consensual, how is it covert?
If both parties consent to a recording then there is no problem - we are
speaking of a situation where the person doing the recording is doing so
covertly. The person doing the covert recording is a party to the
conversation and is consenting to the recording - the other party is not be
aware that the conversation is being recorded. It is covert if one employs
a hidden device to record the conversation and that is not known by the
other participants of the conversation.
> Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I just 'phoned my father, a
> lawyer. Covert audio/video is admissible in English courts. Given
> opportunity, the defence may well challenge its authenticity. But in
> principle it's admissible, and it's often used.
I could find nothing which would prohibit the use of a covert consensual
audio/video under UK law. In fact UK law is somewhat more lenient than US
law. For example although an order of the court must be obatined to
intercept a conversation over the phone (non-consensual) - it is perfectly
permissable for a law enforcement officer to bug a room to record
conversations of non consenting individuals inside that room (or at least it
was 6 years ago). In the United States however, both types of intercept
require a Court Order .
Nigel Brooks
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|