Posted by Tony Morgan on 07/11/06 18:38

In message <c3p7b2l4lbuc53tt2hvc1b5mcvnladlfkn@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes
>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?
>
>Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I just 'phoned my father, a
>lawyer.

ROFL.... I was waiting for someone to dismiss well defined, tried and
tested statutes on the basis of "XXXX" says differently. Why not quote
Lord Phillips?

>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.

In which case what is your father's view of the Human Rights Act 1998 in
the context being discussed ?

There have been a number of well publicised cases in both District and
High Courts which seem to deny your father's learned view.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

[Back to original message]