Voice Recognition Evidence

DOI10.1177/0022018315624200
Date01 February 2016
AuthorStephen Colman
Published date01 February 2016
Subject MatterCourt of Appeal
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal
Voice Recognition Evidence
Keywords
Identification, voice recognition evidence, evidence adduced by co-defendant, s.78 PACE
The appellant was granted leave to appeal his conviction for conspiracy to defraud on two grounds, one
of which related to the admission of a recording of a telephone call purportedly made by the defendant
which was adduced by a co-defendant. The first ground of appeal was that the trial judge should have
directed the jury not to attempt a voice identification of the appellant or, in the alternative, that the judge
should have properly warned the jury of the special danger of attempting voice identification without
expert or lay listener evidence. The second ground of appeal did not concern voice recognition evidence
and will not be discussed in this note.
This was a multi-handed mortgage fraud case where the appellant had been prosecuted for conspiracy
to defraud together with a number of other defendants. The broad allegation was that the defendants had
fraudulently borrowed large sums of money secured against a number of properties that they did not own
and by impersonating the owners.
The appellant was alleged to have made initial contact with the solicitors who were conducting the
conveyancing transactions and to have subsequently accompanied those purporting to be the owners of
the properties that were being mortgaged to see the solicitors. He received payment from the loans that
were obtained.
Although the appellant had made no comment when interviewed by the police, he did give evidence
at trial. He claimed that he had been unaware that the transactions were fraudulent and had believed that
he was dealing with the genuine owners of the properties. He stated that any money that he received was
repayment of a debt owed to him by one of the other conspirators.
One of the co-defendants was a Mr Robertson. He did not give evidence, but his case was that he was
tricked by the appellant and he attempted to bolster the prosecution case against the appellant to
strengthen his own defence.
During his cross-examination of the appellant, Robertson’s counsel played a recording of a telephone
conversation purportedly made by one of the imposters to a building society. Robertson’s counsel put to
the appellant that the appellant was the caller in the recording. No expert evidence or lay listener
evidence was adduced in relation to the recording.
The appellant sought a direction from the judge that the jury should not conduct their own voice
identification exercise. Although the judge did not give such a direction, he did direct the jury on the
need for care when considering whether the speaker on the recording was the appellant.
The jury found the defendants guilty on all counts. The appellant was convicted of five counts of
conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Robertson was sentenced to two and
a half years’ imprisonment.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2016, Vol. 80(1) 5–16
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018315624200
clj.sagepub.com

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT