Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Use of texting in Tribunal hearing
This has probably been addressed before but yesterday the husband of a client in front of a First Tier Tribunal was seen by the FTT Judge to record a sentence by text on his mobile phone. The Judge did not approve of this. I cannot see anything in THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL)(GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER) RULES 2009 about this. Any ideas would be appreciated.
[ Edited: 5 Jun 2015 at 10:19 am by J.Mckendrick ]you mean, he recorded speech?
it might not be in the rules, but recording anything in a court or tribunal is not allowed - unless the court itself has set up its own recording system, as certainly all county/civil courts have.
Sounds more like he wanted to recall a specific sentence and typed it into an app like Notes or Word on his smartphone? Interesting to see the case for distinguishing that activity from writing your own notes on a sheet of A4.
I find my VI means I can’t switch quick enough between distance and reading scripts when in the hearing so I often find myself writing notes quickly whilst my distance specs. are still on. At the end, when I need to refer back, the notes are not always legible so I am thinking of doing what I do in work in meetings i.e. use my own iPad.
My notes will usually be bullet points of things I think have been missed or misunderstood. They will also include the odd phrase or sentence used by a tribunal member or PO that I need to come back on.
How then ought a tribunal to treat that? I’d argue it as a ‘reasonable adjustment’ to enable me to participate in the hearing. May not be arguable in this case but an appellant would not be challenged for taking their own notes and I’ve not seen an observer or witness challenged on the same in thirty years. Soooooo… ???
Maybe the issue is the telephone is on and cannot be verified as to what functions are being used?
Smart phones are easily capable of multi-tasking and can be recording sound and pictures whilst at the same time be be used to record notes.
If the Tribunal user is not a ‘regular’ then it may be reasonable to ask if one can use ones phone to make a written record.
If the TU is a regular an agreement for use of such equipment at tribunals would be useful.
It’s an interesting one John. What functions could be used to the detriment of the hearing? I guess someone could at the extreme be texting back and forth and that could re-shape an appellants answers but this wasn’t the appellant. It was their husband. If they were a witness then it’s an issue. If they were an observer then perhaps less so. I would agree that recording and taking photos/shooting video are problematic no matter who is doing it.
I agree with your last two paragraphs to some extent but technology means it probably isn’t even that straight forward. If I set my iPad to Airplane mode so nothing is coming in or out I can still take photos and record sound etc. If I show the tribunal I have my Notes app open it doesn’t prove anything as I could have other things like sound recording open in the background. I can’t see a tribunal wanting everyone to have their devices checked for background activity before proceeding.
In this case I suspect there’s little issue. In other circumstances, playing devils advocate to some extent, it’s not hard to see how it could be.
Notwithstanding Mike’s interesting observations the question would be, is s9 of the Contempt of Court Act 198 wide enough to cover it. Section 19 states that “court” includes “any tribunal….”.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/contents
if you mean he was only taking a note in writing, then I don’t see how anyone can object to that, we all do it all the time.
I regularly take my tablet, or laptop, into courts/tribunals on which to take my own note. if its the laptop, no one says anything. these days its more likely to be the tablet, I have been asked a couple of times what it is, and explained, and no issue
it was more of an issue back in the day of the palm pilot, because people weren’t as familiar with them.
It’s an interesting one John. What functions could be used to the detriment of the hearing? I guess someone could at the extreme be texting back and forth and that could re-shape an appellants answers but this wasn’t the appellant. It was their husband. If they were a witness then it’s an issue. If they were an observer then perhaps less so. I would agree that recording and taking photos/shooting video are problematic no matter who is doing it.
I agree with your last two paragraphs to some extent but technology means it probably isn’t even that straight forward. If I set my iPad to Airplane mode so nothing is coming in or out I can still take photos and record sound etc. If I show the tribunal I have my Notes app open it doesn’t prove anything as I could have other things like sound recording open in the background. I can’t see a tribunal wanting everyone to have their devices checked for background activity before proceeding.
In this case I suspect there’s little issue. In other circumstances, playing devils advocate to some extent, it’s not hard to see how it could be.
I think in the case of a rep you’d be trusted as such unless reputation says otherwise.
If it came out that you had recorded, passed info on etc then there’s action that may be taken.
Texting to get more info/ev etc?
Contempt maybe but rude yes.
You may not even get served in the shops if you’re using your ‘phone.
(which bodes well for the coming cashless society.)
I have been a cashless society for a number of years now 😊
One of the things I am looking forward to is increased usage of smartphones to pay for goods and services in the shop. This raises the prospect that clowns with phones stuck to their ear as they approach a counter will have to remove said device in order to use the phone to pay and hopefully screw up the call if not the payment.
In my retirement I intend to purchase a drone and attach two cards to it. One will simply say “NO!” and the other “Pay attention!”. Taking it round the shopping streets of the UK for appropriate use appeals immensely.
On a slightly more serious note, I’m not sure the concept of trust of reps. bears scrutiny. The endless recruitment of new tribunal members means that a well established rep. can find themselves taking endless cases where their credibility is at stake from the off whereas it would, as you surmise, be less the case when the tribunal are familiar with the rep. This does mean that the introduction of new technology into a tribunal room is going to be even more contentious as a result.
Anyone remember the money allocated to bring the Tribunals Service into the 21st (or was it the 20th) century? Wonder when we’ll see the consequences of that.
Nevip, has it right the legislation quoted says the Judge has to give permission for the use of any equipment within the hearing, so it is down to each Judge on the day, if you haven’t permission the Judge can stop you, and failure to comply is contempt, if another Judge doesn’t stop you so be it.
Nevip, has it right the legislation quoted says the Judge has to give permission for the use of any equipment within the hearing, so it is down to each Judge on the day, if you haven’t permission the Judge can stop you, and failure to comply is contempt, if another Judge doesn’t stop you so be it.
if they tried that with me typing into my tablet/laptop they would be facing an equality act claim before you could say knife ....
S9 is solely about ” tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound” and is clearly focussed on the recording of proceedings. It doesn’t apply to other equipment such as keyboards or pencils.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 was obviously enacted before the widespread availability of mobile phones so the language of s9 reflects the technology of the time. However, its purpose is plain. It is perfectly clear that a modern mobile phone is an “instrument for recording sound” even though that is not its primary function (arguments that mobile phones are instruments that record sound as opposed to instruments for recording sound are likely to get short shrift by the courts). So, if you took it out during the hearing it is as sure as night follows day that the judge is going to ask you what you are doing. If the judge was convinced that you were not recording sound then you might be allowed to proceed, bearing in mind s1, 2 and 4(1) of the Act. It all depends on what constitutes “recording sound”. Is making a record (in whatever form) of what is said “recording sound”? Well, yes and no. That is not the issue. The point is that if a mobile phone is, among other things, an “instrument for recording sound” then you clearly need leave of the tribunal to use it in the hearing under s9(1)(a). Any instrument which cannot record sound does not obviously fit the definition and is not, therefore, court by s9.
Curious that it should matter. All tribunals in this area are recorded officially anyway, for the purpose of resolving complaints.
Sadly, it’s a postcode lottery. I would love my hearings to be recorded. At least one complaint would have then been upheld rather than whitewashed away.