The main reason for this is that there is no chain of evidence. For instance, when a recorded interview is conducted under PACE, then there are two tapes, recorded simultaneosly. One is sealed and witnessed by both interviewers and interviewee. So when this is presented to the court as evidence, it is only then that the seal is broken.
Tapes are so easy for someone with a 20 year old computer to change or doctor, then the content can't be relied upon to be accurate.
So record all you want, but I would suggest you look here as well.
That is no reason why a recording should be inadmissible but a transcript of it would be admissible. After all, a transcript is even more easily doctored than a tape. There probably exist ways to detect whether a recording has been spliced, but a transcript is just a piece of text, of which no-one can tell who wrote it (unless handwritten) or when.
The real problem with both recordings and transcripts is that, if they are made by just one individual, one has only that individual's word for it that the transcript/recording accurately reflects the conversation which in fact took place. It therefore has no additional *evidential* value than if the individual did not seek to introduce the material in evidence at all, and just relied on his recollection. The value of a transcript is thus reduced to the status of an aide-memoire which, if necessary, the person could take with him into the witness box, much as a policeman would do with his notebook, which itself is never entered in evidence either.
It would be different if there were an additional witness who had been able to listen to (both sides of) the conversation, and who could corroborate the accuracy of the transcript or recording. Even then there might be questions about the impartiality of this witness.
Hmm, actually I think I'm wrong. A recording can be admissible. I think it's any recording done to prepare a court transcript of proceedings that is not part of the official record.
Sorry Tim but I think Ronald is right. Someone might try to rely on such a recording, but it is no more reliable that the transcript, as it is still only one persons version of events. I also suspect that if it was taken without the knowledge or consent of the other person, then using it with a third party will fall foul of RIPA.
When interviewing members of the public I try to make sure that not only they and their advisors are present I would also have a colleague, and if possible a seperate oficer whose only duty is to make notes of the meeting. They would then prepare the notes, which are not transcipts or verbatum, but a summary of the matters discussed. These are sent to the individual interviewed, hpefully within 24 hours but if not, as soon as possible, and agreement or additional comments made. The Special Commisioners have said that if they are prepared later than 24 hours and are nte signed by all parties, they have little or no evidentiary value.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.