If you are in dispute with someone and you contact them by telephone, ask them pointed questions, tape record the conversation without informing them that you are taping it, then run to the authorities and say "listen to this"can this be legally used in evidence?

Anything can be used in evidence, it's just the weight it would be given.

That isn't true though. Evidence that is not collected in the correct way is inadmissable in the courts. How many people have been cleared because the evidence was inadmissable? I remember one case where the accused was taped having a conversation with his solicitor. The evidence was deemed to be inadmissable and the chap was aquitted.

That isn't true though. Evidence that is not collected in the correct way is inadmissable in the courts. How many people have been cleared because the evidence was inadmissable? I remember one case where the accused was taped having a conversation with his solicitor. The evidence was deemed to be inadmissable and the chap was aquitted.

So hidden CCTV is never used in court?

The News of the World have ensured dozens of folks have been jailed through hidden cameras and microphones.

Don't believe what you hear.

A court will decide for themselves if something is admissible or not.

So who is right?

If you are in dispute with someone and you contact them by telephone, ask them pointed questions, tape record the conversation without informing them that you are taping it, then run to the authorities and say "listen to this"can this be legally used in evidence?

The judge that decides if a recorded telephone call is admissible in a criminal case.

In a civil matter they are usually allowed.

Thats a tough one Alan ! Are you referring to the Mel Gibson recording ? Public opinion would suggest that the recording of him could ruin his career and future earnings !

I think you'll find thats a civil matter then !