Sport4 mins ago
Lip-Reading
Employing 'lip-readers' & reporting what they think has been said in the press seems to be in vogue at the moment. Is this not an intrusion of privacy on a par with phone-hacking? in fact is this not worse, because with a voice recording you have the evidence of what was said, with lip-reading you may have only what they think was said & it is impossible to corroborate?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
KHANDRO, it can be used as evidence in court.
swarb.co.uk/regina-v-luttrell-regina-v-dawson-regina-v-hamberger-cacd-28-may-2004
"The defendants appealed saying the court had wrongly admitted the evidence of a lip reader.
Held: Lip-reading was a recognised skill, and provided the judge gave appropriate warnings to a jury, recognising the possibility that evidence may not be completely accurate, such evidence was admissible.
Rose LJ said: ‘A skill or expertise can be recognised and respected and thus satisfy the conditions for admissible expert evidence, although the discipline is not susceptible to this sort of scientific discipline.’"
swarb.co.uk/regina-v-luttrell-regina-v-dawson-regina-v-hamberger-cacd-28-may-2004
"The defendants appealed saying the court had wrongly admitted the evidence of a lip reader.
Held: Lip-reading was a recognised skill, and provided the judge gave appropriate warnings to a jury, recognising the possibility that evidence may not be completely accurate, such evidence was admissible.
Rose LJ said: ‘A skill or expertise can be recognised and respected and thus satisfy the conditions for admissible expert evidence, although the discipline is not susceptible to this sort of scientific discipline.’"
// The King & Queen were alone in a private carriage in the covered, windowed entrance to Buckingham Palace.
Do you not think it is fair to assume that what you say to each other will not be broadcast in national newspapers?//
Well, obviously their faces were visible, and presumably also their faces were on public display owing to all the TV cameras. In that sense, they were not "in private", at least so far as no reasonable person could expect everybody to stop watching them in such a circumstance.
Again, I do agree that it's inappropriate, and that lip-readers should perhaps not be so freely brought out. But public figures, at a public event, in full view of the public, can have no expectation of a right to privacy to the extent that it should be *illegal* to lip-read their conversations.
Do you not think it is fair to assume that what you say to each other will not be broadcast in national newspapers?//
Well, obviously their faces were visible, and presumably also their faces were on public display owing to all the TV cameras. In that sense, they were not "in private", at least so far as no reasonable person could expect everybody to stop watching them in such a circumstance.
Again, I do agree that it's inappropriate, and that lip-readers should perhaps not be so freely brought out. But public figures, at a public event, in full view of the public, can have no expectation of a right to privacy to the extent that it should be *illegal* to lip-read their conversations.
KHANDRO, there are nine individuals in thst appeal and the judgment contains references to numbered paragraphs supporting the outcome of each appeal.
Unfortunately, I can see only the final digit of each number even in desktop mode so I cannot determine if the accuracy was at issue in all of the decisions to allow or refuse the appeals.
Having said that, not all the appeals were allowed.
Unfortunately, I can see only the final digit of each number even in desktop mode so I cannot determine if the accuracy was at issue in all of the decisions to allow or refuse the appeals.
Having said that, not all the appeals were allowed.
It seems a bit of a distraction anyway. Quite apart from the fact that it's now established as a legal principle that lip-reading evidence is admissible with appropriate warnings, legal standards don't apply to what a TV broadcast says. The King and Queen aren't on trial, someone is merely reporting what they said, or what they're believed to have said. As long as that belief is held sincerely, then the relevant media outlet can judge whether it's worth publishing or not, according to (among others) a public interest test.
I simply don't think there's any case at all for arguing that sharing lip-reading should be outlawed. Especially in this instance: Charles III is a public figure, who was in full view of the public at the time, and, as our Head of State, it can hardly be argued that the public have no right to know what he may have muttered during the ceremony. It may well be in poor taste to share it, but that's a personal judgment and not a legal one.
I simply don't think there's any case at all for arguing that sharing lip-reading should be outlawed. Especially in this instance: Charles III is a public figure, who was in full view of the public at the time, and, as our Head of State, it can hardly be argued that the public have no right to know what he may have muttered during the ceremony. It may well be in poor taste to share it, but that's a personal judgment and not a legal one.
Ellipsis: //Mark as Best Answer
Loads and loads of people can lip read. Mostly deaf people.
So what you're really saying is that people who can lip read should not share what they're saying with people who can't ...//
If you read through this thread you will see that I have repeatedly said nothing about lip-reading per se being wrong, or even repeating it to a third party. It's about whether it is fair to print private conversations in newspapers.
As to its use in a court of law that is completely wrong. If I was the defence lawyer I would get someone to go to the far side of the courtroom & read from a piece of text & see how accurate the transcription of the 'expert' was.
The whole meaning of a sentence might hinge on the difference between saying "is" or "isn't" for example.
Loads and loads of people can lip read. Mostly deaf people.
So what you're really saying is that people who can lip read should not share what they're saying with people who can't ...//
If you read through this thread you will see that I have repeatedly said nothing about lip-reading per se being wrong, or even repeating it to a third party. It's about whether it is fair to print private conversations in newspapers.
As to its use in a court of law that is completely wrong. If I was the defence lawyer I would get someone to go to the far side of the courtroom & read from a piece of text & see how accurate the transcription of the 'expert' was.
The whole meaning of a sentence might hinge on the difference between saying "is" or "isn't" for example.
That's presumably why the "appropriate warnings" are required. But since, in general, all evidence can be questioned in some way or another, it is probably a mistake to focus on just one aspect. Some lip-readers can be very good -- as pointed out, for example, many deaf people rely on lip-reading in order to communicate with others -- and, while they may well make mistakes, I'm not sure they are more frequent for an expert lip-reader to the extent that it's completely unreliable and could never be admissible.
Certainly, there are plenty of, far more unreliable, techniques that are admissible. As long as the jury are made aware of the limitations of a given piece of evidence, I don't see the problem. I would very much doubt that the *only* piece of evidence available is lip-reading anyhow, in order to bring a case to trial: it would only form part of an overall package of evidence.
Certainly, there are plenty of, far more unreliable, techniques that are admissible. As long as the jury are made aware of the limitations of a given piece of evidence, I don't see the problem. I would very much doubt that the *only* piece of evidence available is lip-reading anyhow, in order to bring a case to trial: it would only form part of an overall package of evidence.
-- answer removed --
