"[. . .]

241. There were six separate tape recordings of various conversations which took place. The first recorded Mr Rae speaking with [. . .]

242. The second recording is of Mr Rae speaking with Mr Jones. [. . .]

243. The third recording was of Mr Rae to Mr Mackenzie. Mr Rae [. . .] said that Dr Serrano spoke very good English although he did note that he wasn't able to say whether he would have understood the nuances of what had been said. Mr Mackenzie declared that he wanted to run the story and then started telling an anecdote to Mr Rae about a person who he knew who had been drink driving. This was cut off part way through the recording.

[. . .]

246. The fourth transcript was between Mr Rae and [. . .]

[. . .]

249. After 1900 hours Mr Rae called back. Mr Rae recorded the conversation. [. . .]

[. . .]

254. The sixth transcript was of a conversation between Mr Rae and Ms Rudd. [. . .]

[. . .]

257. [. . .] The tape shows that Mr Rae dictated to Mr Jones [. . .]. Indeed it is plain from the tapes that [. . .]. I accept that Mr Rae did not give evidence before me, even though a witness statement had been taken from him, and I note that the reasons given for not calling him were reasons which existed before the witness statement was taken, however in my judgment that is no reason to ignore the real evidence contained on the tapes which I have heard.

[. . .]"

"[. . .]

54. [. . .] the judgment in the case of Cogley v. R.T.E. [2005] 2 I.L.R.M. 529. [. . .] Using a concealed camera, a worker filmed the operation of the nursing home over a two week period. The plaintiffs in the second proceedings based their application primarily on the allegation that the use of a secret camera was a breach of the right to privacy of the plaintiffs and the patients at the nursing home and constituted trespass. [. . .]

[. . .]

56. Ultimately in that case the court went on to refuse the interlocutory relief sought. [. . .]

[. . .]"

[. . .]"

"[. . .]

[. . .] dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees.[112]

[. . .]

[. . .]
112. ^ "Associated Press, "Judge dismisses verdict in Dow Jones libel suit"". Amarillo (Tex): Amarillo.com. 1999-08-06. Retrieved 2013-05-15.
[. . .]

This page was last modified on 12 July 2015, at 15:16."

"[. . .]

20. [. . .] Grobbelaar v. News Group Newspaper Ltd. [2002] 1 W.L.R. 3024, a case of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, [. . .] recordings of a conversation with the plaintiff. [. . .] the audio and video evidence [. . .]

[. . .]"

"[. . .]
[. . .] a telephone conversation the text of which is exhibited. [. . .]
[. . .]"

"[. . .]

28. Counsel for the plaintiffs cited the following passage to the trial judge from paragraph 34.20 of Gatley[i.e. a book called Gatley on Libel and Slander]:

“[. . .] Evidence of anonymous telephone communications [. . .]”

[. . .]"

"[. . .]

[. . .] He phoned the respondent’s office several times that day and [. . .] recorded that he asked the respondent “what the bloody hell was going on”. [. . .]

[. . .]"

"[. . .]

[. . .] the telephone conversation was recorded and that this recording was subsequently heard by another member of staff at Moore Blatch called Mr Timothy Spring.

[. . .]"

"[. . .]

4. . [. . .] The lunch meeting was covertly filmed.

[. . .]

[8] Unfortunately for [. . .] the two strangers he chose to let in on his secret were undercover reporters from The Sunday Times who were filming him on hidden cameras as he explained how he could secretly help push private business in parliament for cash.

[. . .]

74. [. . .] In the present case the bundle for the hearing before me includes two items which would probably be before a jury at trial [. . .]: a transcript of the edited sequence of events from the covert filming and [. . .]

[. . .]

98. . In this case, I am to place myself in the position of a reader of The Sunday Times (print or online), a serious-minded weekly newspaper, reading lengthy articles prominently positioned in the news section of the paper on a serious topic of evident political and public importance. In the case of the Front Page and Inside Articles, they are articles published under the Insight brand which I as the reader am told result from an undercover investigation in the course of which the key conversation has been recorded. I would expect the article to be largely comprised of factual revelations though I would also expect some indication of the paper's viewpoint on what it had uncovered.

[. . .]

103. [. . .] The Inside Article also included at the end the words "Video: view footage of the Insight Investigation at www.sundaytimes.co.uk/news. [. . .]

[. . .]

123. [. . .]

""Mr [. . .] made the following statement today (Sunday) in response to the allegations in the Sunday Times.

[. . .]

"The Sunday Times has chosen to quote very selectively from a recording obtained clandestinely during a conversation of nearly an hour and a half in a restaurant with two undercover reporters who purported to be representing a client from South Korea.

"My lawyer requested the whole recording from which these extracts were obtained but this has not been given.

"The whole recording would show the context of the conversation and demonstrate clearly that at no stage did I agree or offer to work for the fictitious company these undercover reporters claimed to be representing, still less did I commit to doing so for a day a month as the article claims.

[. . .]

124. The Defence pleads that the online versions of the Front Page and Inside Articles also each had a video clip inserted showing part of the audio-visual recording of the lunch meeting. [. . .]

[. . .]

127. [. . .] The Sunday Times' position was supported, on the face of it, by express quotations from a recorded conversation. [. . .]

128. [. . .]

[. . .]

[1] A LOBBYIST has been caught on film boasting [. . .]

[. . .]"