Recording an Interview Under Caution

[areweatfault]

Can anyone confirm that wanting to make your own recording in an IUC is a legal right of the person being interviewed in the IUC? They may not like it, but can they deny you the right to make your own recording for your own protection?

[bio]

Why bother? you are legally entitled to obtain a copy of the IUC yourself after the interview anyway. You will be given a form at the end of the interview telling you how you can obtain a copy of either the tapes or CDs. It is unlikely you will get a copy there and then, but it should only take a few days.

[areweatfault]

Hey bio great suggestion! That never crossed mind, yes sure great idea, just trust that you will ever get a copy of an unadulterated tape or better still let them just intimidate you on their tape which stays in their system! So, why bother thinking for yourself and taking your own recording device to protect yourself and ensure a fair playing field? Which, I now understand is your legal right to do if you are ever invited for a cosy chat in an IUC? But yes, of course you are correct why bother?...............

Edited December 2, 2011 by areweatfault

[bio]

I was trying to help............

 

Anyway, as I said, you are legally entitled to a copy of the recording, on whatever media it was made at the time. Quite how you think anyone can alter a recording after it has been made (remember we are talking council/DWP offices here, not super duper recording studios!) is beyond me! Anyway, there will be two copies of the recording made at the time of the IUC. One of these copies will be sealed in your prescence, with your signature on the seal. This copy of the recording can only normally be opened after a request has been made to magistrates, so if you do think you have received an adulterated copy, you can check it against the original.

 

Do you read lots of conspiracy stories?

[areweatfault]

Hey bio, of course I do! It seems you may write a lot of conspiracy stories! A good example being the one that you posted in response to my original question I asked about the legality of making your own recording and did not ask for 'help' about how to get a copy of their tape.... But hey thanks for trying to 'help'.......... The internet is littered with heartbreaking stories of people being in IUC's who are never given forms, never asked to sign tapes and never asked to sign the written statements that are taken during these interrogations! Oops, I mean interviews. A conspiracy theory nearly slipped out of me there.

Edited December 2, 2011 by areweatfault

[MARTIN3030]

Ok guys lets keep things civil.

[flumps1976]

If you wish to record your interview then you have to inform the department in advance, you will then be issued with a letter before the recorede interview takes place and there is a paragraph that states that you can record for your own domestic use but that the recording should not be placed on the internet.

Members of staff can also refuse to be recorded and an alternative person should be located who does not object to being recorded.

Any recorded interviews must also be held in a private interview room.

[areweatfault]

Flumps1976 thanks for a great answer. I assume that if you accept the 'terms or contract' of the above that state 'for domestic use' then that implies that you cannot use the recording in any other aspect outside of the house or family home. Which is a way to ensure that you can't produce it in a court of law....Clever that.

Edited December 3, 2011 by areweatfault

[antone]

Well, I suppose it works both ways, really. I mean, you could doctor the recording yourself. I'm not saying you, personally, would do such a thing but it isn't impossible that someone might. Police and DWP recordings need to be made, sealed and stored in particular ways and any access to them needs to be logged.

 

What you could do, though, is make your own recording and get a copy of the official one as well. If they differ in any way, seek advice from a lawyer.

 

Here is the guidance to officers at the HSE when conducting IUCs, with rules about making audio recordings starting at section 44. I imagine DWP rules are similar. To be honest, I'm reasonably sure that the DWP are not going to tamper with the recording because whatever else they may be, they're not blithering idiots. A member of staff caught tampering with evidence is likely to find themselves sitting on the wrong side of the IUC table in short order.

 

Edit to add link.

Edited December 3, 2011 by antone

[Springboard]

I was told that you can have a copy of the tape when the outcome of the interview is has been determined by the 'decision makers' and that can take several months depending upon the compexity of the information/allegations. It did cross my mind to make my own recording but I didn't do it in the end and now wish I had; if you can get them to agree I don't think it could hurt for them to know you have your own copy.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Springboard

[areweatfault]

Springboard, that is so true! My point exactly why you should make your own recording, and under no circumstances trust what they tell you about tapes. They will tell you things like 'You can have a copy when the interview ends' yet, the only time they are legally allowed to give you a copy is if they PROSECUTE you which could take them months or even years to do! So you see, they are full of deception and should never be trusted. In fact, they are encouraged to make every effort not to give you a copy in case they want to interview you again and you may remember what you said in a previous interview and use it to defend yourself! Brilliant tacit.... Oh dear, now I am going to be accused of writing conspiracy stories not just reading them here

Edited December 4, 2011 by areweatfault

[Springboard]

You are not paranoid, you are dead right! And if your instinct tells you second check or back up, make sure you do! Have you attended an interview? Will you have a solicitor with you?

[antone]

It's obviously sound advice that one should not trust a person who is being paid to gather evidence against you. And as it appears you have the right to make a recording, it seems like a good idea to avail yourself of that right.

 

It's quite another to imply, in a forum based on facts and evidence, that evidentiary recordings are routinely tampered with, despite the fact that such tampering is, in and of itself, a serious crime. I never met a fraud investigator at the DWP who cared enough about a case to risk going to jail.

 

If you believe you should be able to introduce your own recording as evidence in court, how would you demonstrate to said court that you haven't altered it in any way?

[areweatfault]

atone, how do you know that everything in this forum is based on fact and sound evidence? Is it just because you say it is? Oh by the way, thanks for the link you gave I read that information a few weeks ago but thanks anyway.

Edited December 4, 2011 by areweatfault

[antone]

No problem (re the link).

 

What I meant was that on this forum the idea is that we should attempt to base our responses on facts and provide supporting evidence where possible, not that absolutely everything is 100% correct or that no personal opinions are offered.

 

For example, I cannot state it as fact that there's no way DWP investigators could alter recorded evidence - because clearly it's technically possible. It could happen. All I can state is that doing so is perverting the course of justice, a serious crime. I can further state that there is no evidence that it happens, and give the reasons why chain of evidence protection is important.

 

And finally, I can ask how you would propose to provide chain of evidence protection such that your own recording should be admissible in court.

[jabba jones]

I wouldn't bother wasting your time Antone.

 

This thread is based on scaremongering nonsense & despite being able to answer some of the questions I've decided not to mainly because of areweatfaults attitude & the fact that it's obvious they wouldn't believe me anyway.

 

They best advice I can give is to try to remember to take your tin foil hat off before the IUC starts!

[bio]

I gave up a while ago.........

[Springboard]

Hi Antone - Regarding your comment concerning 'preserving the chain of evidence' ie the tape recording at IUC. A solution could be that tapes are exchanged, sealed and signed at the same time?

 

I do agree with arewatfault concerning access to the tape as I believe a copy should be instantly available or at the least accessible without delay by whatever method is deemed to be secure. I have a question concerning the visual recording during the interview process. How is this accessed?

[bio]

There is NO visual recording of a LA/DWP IUC. You will be invited to sign the tape/CD seal at the end of your IUC, and can request a copy of the recording, although it is unlikely that you will be given this straight away. The reason for this is that whilst two copies of the IUC are made at the same time, one is sealed as the 'master copy', and one will remain as the 'working copy' and it is from this that further copies will be made.

[jadeybags]

I was told I could have a copy, & was shown the form, yet I wasn't given the form at the end & I forgot to ask for it :o(

Not that it ended up mattering, no further action taken. But what do they even do with those tapes in the end? Shouldn't people be given both copies anyway if there is no further action? And yes I know, they could quite well make more copies, but I can't see why they would want to...

[Springboard]

Thanks Bio for your reply,

There certainly are CCTV's in some if not all interview rooms - installed for 'security ' purposes.

If a decision to prosecute goes ahead the tape recording is typed up and submitted as evidence - it is not easy to obtain a copy of the tape itself or the transcription until you are in court - sadly delaying tactics are very common.

[antone]

Hi Antone - Regarding your comment concerning 'preserving the chain of evidence' ie the tape recording at IUC. A solution could be that tapes are exchanged, sealed and signed at the same time?

 

That could certainly be done. But once the claimant broke the seal of their copy, it's no longer possible to ensure it's a correct record. Perhaps if we gave the claimant two copies - one sealed and one not sealed. That's generally how it works within the DWP or other investigating agency: they have a sealed "master copy" and another they use as their "working copy". If anyone disputes the recording, the master copy can be unsealed in a court or wherever and used to verify the accuracy of any other copy.

 

Of course, that leaves an issue. If we can't trust that the DWP hasn't tampered with the sealed master copy, how can we be sure that a claimant hasn't tampered with their sealed master copy? If the two sealed master copies disagree, which do we trust?

 

I don't know - I'm not and never was a fraud investigator or lawyer.

[Bustard]

AFAIK the reason for using late 80's to early 90's technology with Analogue cassettes is the twin deck recorder makes a recording on magnetic tape via it's recording heads and that's that as it were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette . If a digital medium was used for recording IUC's , there would be ways and means of tampering by either party .

 

The problem with the person being interviewed making a private recording by whatever means is admissibility . I think there was one case of a teacher being sacked by a school board of governors , she made a recording outside the room they were in discussing her case . Apparently there was contentious points and issues and she took the school to a Employment Tribunal , however her private recording was deemed to be inadmissible by the Tribunal .

 

I was told of one case in the 90's when a railway manager employed by another sector , took it on himself to film a guard inside the engine's cab with the driver when he ( The Manager ) was on annual leave . The railway wanted him sacked , the Union representing the Guard got it thrown out as the video recording was deemed to be inadmissible . What I'm driving at is things can work both ways .

 

As for that guard they caught him again and they sacked him ...some people never learn

[tabs666]

By the way, digital recordings can be used now, but a sealed master copy is still produced in the interview. I honestly don't know what the original posters problem is.....if you are that bothered, just don't attend the interview. I'm an investigator, and ALWAYS comply with PACE codes of practice because if I don't I've wasted my time.