Recording

donutface

Hypothetically speaking, if a member of the Gardai was to discriminate against a group of people constantly with unnecesary threats and general slagging (cut your f*in hair for instance) would it be legal to record these conversations without consent? Would it hold up in a court as harrasment?

Or if you ask permission to record the conversation, and the member of the Gardai refuses this, can they still interview you?

Ofcourse this is all just hypothetical as I have no idea what Irish law is on something like this.
Originally the question came to me when I read about someone setting up a speed camera on their house, and then catching a police officer speeding, however it was thrown out of court as some kind of an invasion of privacy

frobisher

A bit OT, but related: I remeber myself and some freinds went into Xtravision in Rathmines, it was the end of the night and we had had a few pints but were totally together and in no way out of line. Suddenly the police came in and started asking one of the guys lots of questions, we presumed it was a case of mistaken identity. The Garda became incredibly aggresive and we actually thought one of them was going to hit one of our freind until another freind held up his mobile phone and showed that he'd been recording everything. The Gaurds left immediatelly. It can be an effective deterent at least!

cushtac

donutface wrote:

Originally the question came to me when I read about someone setting up a speed camera on their house, and then catching a police officer speeding, however it was thrown out of court as some kind of an invasion of privacy

Gardaí and the emergency services can break speed limits if driving official vehicles while on duty.

timmywex

no 1.: emergency services are able to break the road traffic acts in the course of their duties i.e when working
no.2: the evidence will not stand up for a court appearence bacause it is both an invasion of privacy, and certain questions over the speed camera have to be brought up

donutface

Thats really interesting regarding the speed limits. Back to my original question though, would I legally be able to record an encounter without their consent?

timmywex

well, to be honest, i don't know, but the evidence might not stand in court

twogunkid

May or may not be used in court----however would be really helpful were u to make complaint to Garda complaints commission
Alternatively u could just cut your hair

dermot_sheehan

An out of court statement asserting the truth of its contents is generally inadmissable as hearsay unless it comes under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rules. One exception is confessions and inculpatory statements which is why police recordings of interviews with suspects are admissable.

Recordings from shop video cameras would be admissable pursuant to section 5 of the criminal evidence act 1992
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA12Y1992S5.html

johnnyskeleton

gabhain7 wrote:

An out of court statement asserting the truth of its contents is generally inadmissable as hearsay unless it comes under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rules. One exception is confessions and inculpatory statements which is why police recordings of interviews with suspects are admissable.

Recordings from shop video cameras would be admissable pursuant to section 5 of the criminal evidence act 1992
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA12Y1992S5.html

It would not be adduced to prove the truth of what was said e.g. "X's hair is too long" could not be used to prove that X's hair was too long, but it is admissable,as the best evidence, to show that the statement was made. Also, the person who made the recording prove it in court.

I don't think it would be invasion of privacy if you recorded what someone said to you unprompted and uninvited in a public place. Also, if you just happen to be recording at the time, and someone gets in the way of that recording there is no actual invasion of privacy there (In my opinon).

However, a garda telling you to cut your hair is not exactly harrasment, unless it is persistent and seriously interferes with the your peace and privacy or causes you alarm, distress or harm.

When you bring up the garda interview, that is a different story. If they are just asking you questions on the street you are not obliged to answer them, but if they do have grounds for arresting and detaining you, then can then take you to the station. So you are entitled to remain silent if a garda asks you questions, but if you haven't done anything it will save you time and hassle to co-operate (especially if they are not investigating you, but someone else).

If they have lawfully arrested, detained and cautioned you, and acted in accordance with the custody regulations, they can interview you to investigate serious offences. In such a situation they will usually be the ones who record you (unless there is a problem with the equipment or [believe it or not] the station is not equipped for video recording).

However this is all in the area of hypothetical. In real life it is generally best to co-operate with the gardai. This is partly because they are often just trying to do a thankless job, but mostly because if there is one thing that really annoys a power hungry new recruit, it is a fiendishly polite and helpful citizen who knows their rights.

Jo King

The way to get a recording introduced into evidence is to go away and write down what is on the recording. A person can give evidence as to what they themselves heard. If they are challenged as to the accuracy of their recollections they produce the transcript of their recordings and say that they used it to refresh their memory.

dermot_sheehan

Jo King wrote:

The way to get a recording introduced into evidence is to go away and write down what is on the recording. A person can give evidence as to what they themselves heard. If they are challenged as to the accuracy of their recollections they produce the transcript of their recordings and say that they used it to refresh their memory.

Memory refreshing documents can only be used on the stand by "professional witnesses", (guards, store dectives, doctors etc), if made contemperaneously and if permission of the trial judge is sought.

Jo King

Anybody can say that they took contemporaneous notes. The notes are a back up to allegations of recent fabrication. The tape recording is explained as an aide memoire at the time the notes are made. It is possible to send the notes and tape-recording to oneself by registered post at the time of making them. The unopened package can be brought to court and will be admitted in evidence if need be.
Memory refreshing occurs where the person may no longer have an accurate recollection of what occurred and asks to be allowed refresh themselves from contemporaneous documents before giving oral evidence.

johnnyskeleton

Jo King wrote:

The way to get a recording introduced into evidence is to go away and write down what is on the recording. A person can give evidence as to what they themselves heard. If they are challenged as to the accuracy of their recollections they produce the transcript of their recordings and say that they used it to refresh their memory.

If a witness gives evidence that threats were made, the video can be used to corroborate their evidence.

I also think that a person who creates a document(i.e. a video) can "prove" it in court by stating that he made it, it has been in his possession ever since, never tampered with etc, and he can be cross examined on this.

But more importantly, none of this is needed if the document(i.e. the video) is not adduced to prove the truth of its contents but to show that the statement was made.

By the by, a transcript would be even more in violation of the hearsay rule than the video. While the video is an out of court statement, a transcript of it would be an out of court statement about another out of court statement proffered to be a true account of the first statement.