Ear Ear, whats going on 'ere then?

So, big deal eh? A senior police officer has been making tape recordings of telephone calls to the high and mighty such as the Attorney General and the IPCC. Now follows a media witch-hunt for the copper’s head on a platter. What rubbish!
Firstly, making tape recordings of significant conversations is second nature to any police officer. The first defence of the rogue is to claim that any unfortunate remark he has made was in fact dreamed up by the officer concerned. The rules regarding evidence are quite clear.

Principle

Most interviews at police stations with persons suspected of having committed indictable or either way offences should be tape recorded.
Tape recorded interviews need not be conducted in respect of persons suspected of having committed a terrorist offence or offences contrary to the Official Secrets Act 1911.
If a suspect is charged following a tape recorded interview, a Record of Interview will be prepared. This has traditionally been the responsibility of the officer present at the interview, but in some police forces 'tape summarisers' are now used.
The Record of Interview serves a number of purposes:

• To enable the prosecutor to make an informed decision on the basis of what was said at interview;


• To be an exhibit to the officer's statement;


• To enable the prosecutor to comply with advance disclosure; and


• Where it is accepted by the defence, to be used for the conduct of the case by all parties.

• 
  

Certainly, the Chief Constable was not carrying out an investigative duty when talking with the AG or IPCC. However, something made him take this course. We cannot know the previous conversations that might have taken place un-recorded but it is possible there might have been, at the very least, some ‘misunderstanding’ or confusion as to actual words that were used. Given that this government are masters of spin and obfuscation it is certainly a good idea to have an irrefutable record of discussions. If one looks at the character of Sir Ian with any suspicion, it is only fair to remember that this is the same AG who is finding difficulty in getting his words out regarding the legality of the war in Iraq.
To me, the sad thing about this is that a police officer has so lost his trust in his associates that he feels the need to record his business with them.
The AG has accepted an apology (was this recorded?). We do not know what the IPCC thinks or intends to do - if anything. However, the Indians are circling the wagons.