legal question

[journeyman Mick]

A while back I was interviewed by two fire service officers in regards to allegations I had raised about some pretty serious shortcomings/wrongdoings in said department. It's gone up to ministerial level now and they're still trying to wear me down/fob me off (11 months and counting). I can back up everything I've raised, which is why they haven't been game to deny anything, they've just skirted it all and spouted platitudes. However the Minister has written a letter to one of the local MPs, which was forwarded on to me, and I believe it to be misleading. It refers to the said interview.

The interview was recorded by one of the officers and all present agreed to the recording. I also recorderd the interview but did not tell them, not so much because I was trying to chucka sneaky on them, more that I didn't want to come on as adversarial. They recorded as it formed part of their investigation, I recorded as insurance, but didn't want to came across as "hey watch out, I'm recording all this". In hindsight I probably should have told them, but it's happened now. In all probability, I'd be within my rights to ask for a copy of the recording anyway. If I use this recording now to prove my point that the minister's letter was misleading what will the repercussions be for me legally? If it goes completely silly and ends up in court will:
a) it be inadmissable
b) give grounds for me to be charged with some offence
c) if answer to "b" was yes, what am I looking at, slap on the wrist? fine? jail? (surely not).

Mick

[Stuart]

I'm not a legal beagle, nor am I going to pretend to be - so will be interested in the real answer.

My take on it is: you (and everyone there) agreed to the interview being recorded. There is no specification to "by whom" and on what machine. You have agreed to the concept that the interview will be "recorded".

As to the minister's letter, in the first instance, why can't you provide (written) direct quotes that counteract the letter, and say that they can confirm the validity of your recollection by referring back to the recording of the interview. Put the onus on them to disprove your version of events from the interview. If it comes down to a legal action, they would need to play the tape to show the "quote" was not valid. The fact you have a copy of the recording does not have to come into it.

[Exador]

A while back I was interviewed by two fire service officers in regards to allegations I had raised about some pretty serious shortcomings/wrongdoings in said department. It's gone up to ministerial level now and they're still trying to wear me down/fob me off (11 months and counting). I can back up everything I've raised, which is why they haven't been game to deny anything, they've just skirted it all and spouted platitudes. However the Minister has written a letter to one of the local MPs, which was forwarded on to me, and I believe it to be misleading. It refers to the said interview.

The interview was recorded by one of the officers and all present agreed to the recording. I also recorderd the interview but did not tell them, not so much because I was trying to chucka sneaky on them, more that I didn't want to come on as adversarial. They recorded as it formed part of their investigation, I recorded as insurance, but didn't want to came across as "hey watch out, I'm recording all this". In hindsight I probably should have told them, but it's happened now. In all probability, I'd be within my rights to ask for a copy of the recording anyway. If I use this recording now to prove my point that the minister's letter was misleading what will the repercussions be for me legally? If it goes completely silly and ends up in court will:
a) it be inadmissable
b) give grounds for me to be charged with some offence
c) if answer to "b" was yes, what am I looking at, slap on the wrist? fine? jail? (surely not).

Mick

It's not a problem Mick, as far as I can see. Qld law doesn't prevent you taping conversations, with or without the other party's consent, but the evidence act may prevent you using it if it ever got to Court or making the conversation public without consent. I'd use it to shut down the BS and you might be surprised how smoothly the rest fo the process goes - of course, they might just get snakey and refuse to talk to you instead...

[meerkat]

Mick,

would be interested in a legal opinion but I understand that it's not a problem but would be if it was over the phone for instance. But don't take it as gospel.

Best to make diary notes and to put in as many quotes (word for word) as you can. These hold more weight than "he said something like ..."

best of luck

[Fossil]

If it is an issue that can somehow bite you, I would definately seek qualified advice. I taped an interview once or twice, a few years back. When it went to court, the evidence was admissable because it was ruled that there was a strong likelyhood, that the taped individual would otherwise lie on oath. This was federal law, and there was a lot of dicussion about it in court at the time, so it was not an easy matter having the tape admitted in to evidence.

A subtle letter from your legal eagle will often clear matters up, way before it goes to court. Don't go to court unless you absolutely have to. Court is a horrible place for an honest person, and should be avoided at all costs IMO. Court is definately NOT the place to have issues of right and wrong resolved. In my ignorance, I once thought it was.

Good luck.

[echnidna]

In Vic at least 2 people must be aware of the tape recording occurring, dunno about Qld.

While the tape may have limitations in Court,
a precise written trancript of the tape, word for word, is likely to be admissable as legal evidence of what was said and done. It would in effect be an accurate diary record of proceedings

[Sturdee]

Interesting question Mick.

Whilst everyone agreed to a recording being made, that doesn't mean that everyone agreed to another secret recording being made as well.

If they had known that you wanted to record the meeting as well, they may not have agreed to it or made a recording at all but relied on one of them to have taken notes.

That's why they come in twos so that they can take notes and agree what was said whereas you have no witness. Never go into such meetings without a witness and note taker. Be obvious and they will be much more careful and considerate. DAMHIK.

In the circumstances I would not claim to having made a recording, however I would transcribe the recording into a verbatim transcript. I would quote sections of the transcript as needed and when questioned about it say that you have written this down as remembered by you after the meeting and that you consider it to be factual and that it can be verified against the official recording made by the said officers.

Peter.

[snowyskiesau]

IANAL but ...
In Queensland the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 authorises a person to record any conversation they are a party to.
(In Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory it is generally not an offence to make the recording, unlike in New South Wales, Tasmania and Australian Capital Territory).
In most (all?) states, it is illegal to replay the recording to other parties or to publish the content of the recording.

[echnidna]

The only way they could dispute your transcript in a Court would be to produce their recording of the meeting.

If their recording has been edited that's then you tell the beak you made the transcript from your own recollections aided by your own recording then offer to produce it as it will prove an attempt to pervert the course of justice has occurred.

[ernknot]

Contact ACA or some similar show, they love this sort of stuff when they can stick it up a gov. org.
Unless you get legal advice you will not win, especially in a court of law. The other alternative you have is to walk away even though it will leave a bitter taste in your mouth. Even if you win you lose.

[bitingmidge]

Mick,

Get Serious.

Complain here!

http://abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/contact/dobinline.htm

Cheers,

P

[Clinton1]

Suggest that you request a copy of the recording from the 2 FSO's now.

[Flowboy]

Hi Mick,

As I said this morning, get a lawyer on your side now, before you need a barrister. Fossil's right. If you go to court believing its where justice is meted out, you're in for heavy disillusionment. If you have your own family beak, then get them to refer you to someone used to dealing with "Smith v Govt of QLD" type cases I would seriously doubt that your tape would be admissible as evidence, so no penalty I would say. Good luck and please get a beak.

Rob

[sea dragon]

Mick,What is a guy from lovely Kurranda getting caught up in such a fracas. Great neck of the woods, am familiar with it.

I used to be a QC in Queensland and other places BUT I am not going to give you any advice. There may be restraints on giving what may be considered to be advice, even if there is no charge/fee. YES, the law is often an ass.

IMHO, I have no problems having taped a conversation that was taped by others. They consented to the conversation being taped, as did you. The fact they were consenting on the basis that their recording was the only one has no impact.
There are differences between taping telephone conversations and physical meetings. Assume we are talking about a meeting; I am unaware of any law applicable to that situation, that you have breached.

One of the most effective ways open to you is to:
1. have the tape transcribed;
2. re-listen to the tape (sometimes called refreshing your memory), satisfying yourself about the accuracy of the transcription;
3. respond to the inaccuracies in the Minister's letter by saying that his statement X is inaccurate and that your recollection of what was said on that was "......". You then quote the relevant passage from the tape, but without revealing that it is an accurate transcript of what was said.
4. you can go to the next stage of requiring the fire officers to reveal a transcript of their tape, to back up your version (and copy of the tape). 5.If it is different, you are the then in a position to be able to substantiate an ever more serious allegation that those persons have sought to fabricate and consciously distort material and have misled the Minister.
6. Ministers do not like to be misled, especially now an election has been called and they might be seen with egg on their face. The interviewing officers would in all probability be left hung out to dry, by pollies and union.
7. I do not see how or when a Court is going to become involved, but the probabilities is that in any hearing, your memory of what was said would be admissible, the tape would be and so would the transcript if you adopt it as being accurate.
8. There are avenues open to you to take the matter as far as you want to, but you would be well advised to make the background known to your solicitor, have a couple of copies of the tape made and have the original kept in safe custody with someone with a safe.
All of that is only my perception of how I think a hypothetical would unfold, of course. Take it as you will.
Best of luck, mate.

[DanP]

Mick,

In VIC there is no offence to record a conversation as long as you are party to the conversation. You may not sell, distribute or otherwise use the recording.

My suggestion is to use the recording as your contemporaneous notes of the conversation and prepare a written transcription. If in court, you are questioned as to your notes of the conversation, you may refer to the transcription, as long as you make the court aware of the existence of the tape (to qualify the transcription as accurate). It is then up to the court or other party to request the production of the tape.

Dan