Why are recording devices illegal in criminal courts despite there being no perosnally sensitive data?

Question

I challenge corporations and government authorities. The evidence centres around environmental and product solutions to toxic problems. I also question the spending habits of authorities (like the £13,000 PER DAY Somerset County Council, Somerset, UK voted to pay the ex-Chief Executive of British Petroleum, Lord Browne of Madlingly using Council Tax payers money).

I have 3 or 4 potential warrants out for my arrest. That's if Somerset County Council's district subsidiary Mendip District Council decide to execute them.

Despite the fact that the criminal courts of the UK are supposed to be public it is illegal to ACCURATELY record the court proceedings in a Magistrates' Court using an audio recording device. When I tried it - this was done because the court clerk refused to allow me their court notes - I was threatened with imprisonment.

The evidence I presented did not contain personal data so the Data Protection Act was not breached.

P.S. Local newspaper hide the full story.

Buy the way, non-of the evidence is defamatory and is all backed-up by letters, reports and other thorough research.

ALSO: PLEASE REMEMBER IT'S A PUBLIC COURT. The court may order proceedings be conducted in private if witnesses need protection.

I say this because there are some people seem to be wasting my time. Plus I am the Defendant. This was my court case and it was the local newspaper - Midsomerset Newspapers, Wells, Somerset, UK (Editor: Phil Welsh) - that refused to practice RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM.

Answer 1

One reason that I can think of is that there can be things said or shown that may be out of line and are to be stricken from the record. If there were recording devices, it would be much harder to remove these technically illegal occurrences from the record, especially with the internet.

That would be my theory for the US, I don't know about the UK tho.

Answer 2

I'm from the U.S. and I never heard that they were actually illegal, but I once asked a court reporter why they just didn't use tape recorders. (They sometimes do.) She was horrified. She said that a person who is actually present can see the gestures and make out the grunts and mumbles that don't come out well on a recording. I was in a criminal court once and at the very beginning, the judge announced that the room was bugged with devices that can hear a whisper in the back row.

Answer 3

Im extremely specific it might grow to be an argument if Gordon Browns newborn who i've got self assurance has cystic fibrosis became into being cared for by ability of certainly one of those individual, maximum unlawful immigrants have dissapeared into the device,which makes the stats look extra advantageous, in step with danger those human beings will in basic terms be located in the event that they don't pay thier council tax,and thats not sarcasm,it a fact on how undesirable issues are-email David Cameron straight away (link is on the internet) regardless of while you're actually not tory-the factor scoring would reason Cam to develop the problem!!!,that's surprising!

Answer 4

Criminal Records Database : http://CriminalRecords.InfoSearchDetective.com

Answer 5

probably beacuse it is a legal procedure and anything you do i.e. record could be construed as a defimation of character when not convicted etc!!! e.g. when court proceedings are shown on tv it is a characatuer and not an actual representation as the person has not been convicted etc?? thats my view anyway if it makes sence to you!!

Answer 6

its contempt of court, think about it, youre calling into question the validity of hte court, and thats not on. unless youre a practicing legal representative you have no rights to see documents, your solicitor will have access to them, but not you directly.

and it does contain personal data, the participants voices, and ill bet you didn tseek permission from these people to record their voices did you. so youre stuffed.

i suggest you prepare your case, and explain the misguided stupidity which caused you to act in this way.. this is England, not america. our judiciary is many hundreds of years old, you dont mess with htat sort of tradition... the law is independent of the crown and state... apologise, nay, grovel, and you may avoid jail...

Answer 7

Quite frankly the answer is simple. It is prejudicial to the defendant, who is presumed INNOCENT until found guilty by a jury of his/her peers. Recordings could potentially be prejudicial to that defendant. It doesn't matter if they are or are not prejudicial in that particular case.