Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Record Of Proceedings

scott mcinally
forum member

Inclusion manager - Durham County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 16

Joined: 16 June 2010

Interested to see if colleagues elsewhere in the country have been receiving the following from the Court Service when Records of Proceedings are requested:
“ the Audio file and its contents should not be shared with other persons who are not connected with the proceedings. To do so would be an offence under Section 9(1)(b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which makes it an offence to “publish a recording… by playing it in the hearing of the public or any section of the public, or to dispose of it with a view to such publication.” It may also breach Data Protection legislation.”
We have challenged this and have referred them to the Act itself, which states:
“Use of tape recorders.
(1)Subject to subsection (4) below, it is a contempt of court—
(a)to use in court, or bring into court for use, any tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound, except with the leave of the court;
(b)to publish a recording of legal proceedings made by means of any such instrument, or any recording derived directly or indirectly from it, by playing it in the hearing of the public or any section of the public, or to dispose of it or any recording so derived, with a view to such publication;
(c)to use any such recording in contravention of any conditions of leave granted under paragraph (a).
[F11(d)to publish or dispose of any recording in contravention of any conditions of leave granted under subsection (1A).]
[F12(1A)In the case of a recording of Supreme Court proceedings, subsection (1)(b) does not apply to its publication or disposal with the leave of the Court.]
(2)Leave under paragraph (a) of subsection (1)[F13, or under subsection (1A),] may be granted or refused at the discretion of the court, and [F14if granted—
(a)may, in the case of leave under subsection (1)(a),]
be granted subject to such conditions as the court thinks proper with respect to the use of any recording made pursuant to the leave and;
[F15(b)may, in the case of leave under subsection (1A), be granted subject to such conditions as the Supreme Court thinks proper with respect to publication or disposal of any recording to which the leave relates; and]
where leave has been granted the court may at the like discretion withdraw or amend it either generally or in relation to any particular part of the proceedings.
(3)Without prejudice to any other power to deal with an act of contempt under paragraph (a) of subsection (1), the court may order the instrument, or any recording made with it, or both, to be forfeited; and any object so forfeited shall (unless the court otherwise determines on application by a person appearing to be the owner) be sold or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the court may direct.
(4)This section does not apply to the making or use of sound recordings for purposes of official transcripts of proceedings.”
Subsection 4 above seems the most relevant part.
We have been told the matter has now been referred to the Regional Judge. However, I am concerned that
a) There has been no prior notice/consultation that this was going to be the approach by the Court Service
b) There has been no explanation of the rationale for this approach
c) There has only been a partial reference to the Act itself, which seems to exclude sound recordings for purposes of official transcripts of proceedings, so the communication is ‘potentially’ misleading
d) It seems to be at odds with the practice here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fb7d6ded3bf7f573228a3a4/CSPIP-373_and_374-2019.pdf
e) What is the data protection legislation?

We also have been having issues around the failure to provide recordings full stop due to the recording having been destroyed. In at least one case, set -aside has been refused as it is not in the interest of justice to do so, even thought the conditions for set aside had been met. The case law around record of proceedings that is relevant is http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//aspx/view.aspx?id=2386
https://www.bailii.org./uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2012/293.html

We have asked for leave to appeal on the basis that the Statement of Reasons did not mention arguments that had been raised during the course of the hearing, and a comment by the medical member that he wished he could see the appellant. We have also taken issue with the interlocutory procedures around the set-aside refusal.

As I said, interested to hear from others and sorry for the long post!

Adam BCFU
forum member

Blackpool Centre For Unemployed

Send message

Total Posts: 85

Joined: 9 July 2020

We, in the North West, haven’t even been allowed to have the record of proceedings which paying a large amount of money! It seems that the tribunals are now extremely reluctant to give appellants the proceedings to use as evidence

CHAC Adviser
forum member

Caseworker - CHAC, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 176

Joined: 14 September 2017

I’ve had the same email here regarding one of my cases and replied just stating my agreement to those requirements. Not had my recording yet though and it’s been nearly a week…

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 2050

Joined: 14 July 2014

I think its an open question whether s9(4) applies. The purpose of that subsection is to enable transcription firms to use audio recordings rather than a shorthand writer’s note to produce transcripts. I am not sure that it means that you can do whatever you like with a raw audio file which is itself the official record of proceedings. Beyond that, the rubric is just an accurate statement of fact, rather than any sort of policy, so I am not sure that there was any obligation on the tribunal to consult on it.

The audio recording issue seems to have sent HMCTS into a panic. There are all sorts of weird stories cropping up from different regions. As Dave says, in the North West they have apparently been circulating an irrelevant form from the civil courts which insinuates the need for an imaginary fee to be paid.

I suspect that there will be a number of decisions set aside by the UT coming out of this as a result of a failure to keep ROPs. I think each case needs to be considered carefully though. If your own note of the hearing provides a sufficient basis to make your argument, then it may be that no prejudice results.

bens
forum member

The Welfare Consultancy, London

Send message

Total Posts: 45

Joined: 2 March 2015

At the Sutton office one who requests the Record of Proceedings must apply for a transcription.

File Attachments

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 2050

Joined: 14 July 2014

bens - 14 December 2020 05:54 PM

At the Sutton office one who requests the Record of Proceedings must apply for a transcription.

I doubt anyone will have any complaints if HMCTS is going to pay for them all to be transcribed.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 2547

Joined: 17 June 2010

Dave BCFU - 12 December 2020 08:55 PM

We, in the North West, haven’t even been allowed to have the record of proceedings which paying a large amount of money! It seems that the tribunals are now extremely reluctant to give appellants the proceedings to use as evidence

In the NW I’ve had several credible sources tell me that the issue is that they have yet to figure out how to get the audio out and onto a distributable piece of hardware.