Vocal sounds spoken by an accused during a police interview, when used for voice identification purposes (matching to intercepted telephone calls), are not a 'representation' within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995 and do not attract the recording requirements of s 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Voice identification evidence from a police officer who heard intercepted calls and later heard the accused speak is admissible without a recording, following R v Leong. There is no impropriety in a police officer speaking to an accused in a foreign language during an interview where the accused has declined to answer substantive questions, provided the conversation is innocent and without forethought as to obtaining identification material.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.