Voice Recording

smch8382

Just wondering, is it legal to record a meeting without the permission or knowledge of the other person?

Tom Young

No, not unless you had constructive notice or actual notice of it.

smch8382

That's what I thought. Thanks!

drkpower

Record a meeting?
Do you mean a telephone meeting??

It is, of course, legal to record a telephone conversation and it is generally admissable as evidence.

It is standard practice to record, in writing, minutes of a meeting, an attendance of a meeting or an attendance of a telephone call without informing the other party and these minutes/attendance will generally be admissable. There is no particular reason why an electronic recording should be any different.

Tom Young

Sorry that is not actually correct at all. There are two significant statutory instruments and a constitutional right to privacy under Art 40.3 which clearly state otherwise.

If you are confusing the admissibility of evidence point with a breach of privacy which is the way the above should have been read, then it could possibly be a breach of privacy. You must be on notice before calls are recorded.

My point on contructive notice would make the notes admissible, i.e., in a commercial transaction or indeed some other business. Privately you must be on notice of the recording.

If you need case law see: Kennedy and Arnold v AG, Herrity v Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Limited etc.

Tom

McCrack

Is it not the case that if at least one party to a conversation (whether by means of a telephone or not) knows that the conversation is being recorded then it's fine even if the other party or parties do not know. That was always my understanding of it.

The Kennedy case concerned phone tapping by the State, that's different. I've never heard of the Herrity case.

Also Tom in the normal course of personal or commercial living how would constructive notice that their communications are being recorded be imputed on people?

Tom Young

McCrack: Yes, I didn't state that but you are right, if told or notified of recording in advance. [I knew that and made the point above]

By signing a code of conduct or acceptable use policies, or say on conference bridges etc. or dealing with banks or trading houses, solicitors would be constructive notice within the normal course of their business dealings.

Herrity is a decision of Dunne J. Breach of constitutional right to privacy via phone tapping and publication in an Associated Newspaper publication. 90K Euro damages allowed against a private undertaking.

Tom

Gangu

This thread, and the section on the data protection commmissioner's website dealing with the subject, will tell you the answer you require or at least send you in the right direction. It is not as straightforward an area as it first appears or as these answers posted suggest. [HTML]https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0410&L=IRISHLAW&P=1565[/HTML].

drkpower

Tom Young wrote: »

Sorry that is not actually correct at all. There are two significant statutory instruments and a constitutional right to privacy under Art 40.3 which clearly state otherwise.

If you are confusing the admissibility of evidence point with a breach of privacy which is the way the above should have been read, then it could possibly be a breach of privacy. You must be on notice before calls are recorded.

My point on contructive notice would make the notes admissible, i.e., in a commercial transaction or indeed some other business. Privately you must be on notice of the recording.

If you need case law see: Kennedy and Arnold v AG, Herrity v Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Limited etc.

Tom

The Bar Council thinks differently?
http://tjmcintyre.com/2007/12/admissibility-of-recorded-telephone.html

Tom Young

That's a tribunal my friend. Rules of evidence are much, much different.

Tom

drkpower

Thanks friend...

The Op's question was whether it is legal to record a meeting without the permission or knowledge of the other person?

It is, of course, legal for a party to that meeting/conversation/telephone call to record it. Interception by a third party is a different matter.

The question over the admissability of evidence is more complex but clearly it does not always require actual or constructive notice which is what the Bar Tribunal found.

[Doesnt the Bar Tribunal use the standard civil rules of evidence in their determinations.....? They certainly considered the constitution, european convention and legislagtive provisions in coming to their decision...]

Tom Young

drkpower wrote: »

The Op's question was whether it is legal to record a meeting without the permission or knowledge of the other person?

The answer is no - the person should be informed that the call is being recorded.

drkpower wrote: »

[Doesnt the Bar Tribunal use the standard civil rules of evidence in their determinations.....? They certainly considered the constitution, european convention and legislagtive provisions in coming to their decision...]

My understanding is that the issues complained of were in a course of dealing, that dealing being practicing as a Barrister. The fact that the calls were logged and indeed recorded worked in the favour of the complainant. As you may or may not be aware there are certain ethical standards and codes of practice which must be obeyed. The admission of the calls to evidence was in my mind correct.

dermot_sheehan

I would disagree.

Peart J. in
Atherton v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] IEHC 429 holds that to video the font of someones house from a neighboring house for the purpose of detecting a criminal offence did generate admissable evidence and neither violated the constitution or the european convention.

Similarly I see recording a conversation with someone as an even lesser of an invasion of privacy.

NoAgenda

If a recording was made of a group of work employees making fun of another employee which was derogatory and included conversations that included making plans to deliberately interfere whit items belonging to said employee and plans to impose a "nickname" that was insulting to said employee what would the point of view on that.
If the recording was made in the workplace, in an effort to prove the bullying given the burden of proof is difficult and the fact that most of the staff are conducting it can it be used for this purpuse.

PS: Management can not be approched as they can not be trusted.

PS.PS. I am asking in the context of proving a case of Bullying.

Tom Young

Recordings that are made as aides memoires can be useful in a number of circumstances. In general, the subjects being recorded should be on notice in order that the rights not be compromised. If the recording was made in the course of a transaction, in order to aid recollection, it might be something that legal advisers could find a way to admit it in evidence. Take advice. I know this practice has become prevalent in Equality cases where persons of no fixed abode were using threats to extort monies from publicans. Aides memoires were admitted, etc.

NoAgenda

hi, if a recording was made without giving notice and it showed a group of staff planning and acting against a sole member of staff, and no one belives the sole member of staff any idea of how this could be used to prove said planning???

An Udaras

Would it be correct to think that if a Caution is given to a effected person that you intend to record your interaction with them, that it would then be admissible in court?

lifeandtimes

Yes it is illegal to record a conversation without giving notice that the conversation is being recorded,that's why when you call anywhere with an automated voice recording it states calls are being recorded for training and quality purposes and call centre agents are now having to state is as well,due to privacy and such as call recording can hold up as legal contracts and things