Recording in Workplaces and Meetings: The Law for UK Journalists

1. There is no general UK ban on recording a conversation you are part of

The single most important point for journalists is also the most widely misunderstood: there is no statute in England and Wales that makes it a criminal offence, in itself, to record a conversation you are personally taking part in — whether openly or covertly. A reporter who records their own interview, phone call or meeting is not committing an offence merely by pressing record without announcing it.

The legal exposure comes from what happens next. Making the recording may be lawful, yet keeping it, sharing it or publishing it can still breach data-protection law, the law of confidence, the tort of misuse of private information, or a regulatory code. The correct question is therefore never simply “can I record this?” but “is there a public-interest justification for recording, holding and using this material, and could I obtain it another way?”

2. Data protection: UK GDPR, the DPA 2018 and the journalism exemption

A recording that captures an identifiable person is their personal data, so making, storing and using it is “processing” under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. In principle that engages the data-protection principles — lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation and the rest — which sit awkwardly with covert newsgathering.

The reconciling mechanism is the special-purposes (journalism) exemption. Journalism is one of the “special purposes” defined in section 174 of the Data Protection Act 2018, and Schedule 2, Part 5 provides an exemption from many data-protection obligations where processing is carried out with a view to publication, the controller reasonably believes publication would be in the public interest, and reasonably believes that compliance with the relevant provision would be incompatible with the special purpose. The exemption is powerful but conditional: it is not a blanket carve-out, and you should be able to evidence the public-interest purpose and your reasoning.

Practically, this means logging why a recording was made, limiting who can access it, and applying the same public-interest test you would use for any intrusive method. Our data protection and the journalism exemption guide sets out the conditions in detail.

3. Confidence and privacy: a lawful recording can still be an unlawful publication

Even where a recording is lawfully made, publishing it can give rise to a claim for breach of confidence or for misuse of private information — the tort recognised in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22. The test is whether the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, and if so, whether that expectation is outweighed by the public interest in publication, balancing Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

A candid remark made in a private setting can attract a reasonable expectation of privacy even though the reporter was entitled to be present and to record. So the fact that you did nothing unlawful in capturing the audio does not answer the separate question of whether you may broadcast or quote it. See our guide to misuse of private information for how courts weigh these competing rights.

4. IPSO Editors' Code Clause 10: clandestine devices and subterfuge

For publications regulated by IPSO, Clause 10 of the Editors' Code governs clandestine devices and subterfuge. It provides that the press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices, or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails, or by unauthorised removal of documents or photographs, or by accessing digitally held information without consent.

Crucially, Clause 10 is one of the clauses subject to the public-interest exception: engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including the use of hidden recording devices, can be justified only in the public interest and only where the material cannot reasonably be obtained by other means. A newsroom relying on covert audio should therefore document, before it records, why the public interest justifies the method and why open reporting would not work. See our subterfuge and undercover reporting guide for the editorial sign-off process.

5. Recording public meetings: the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014

Council meetings are a special case where a positive right to record exists. The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 give any member of the public, including the press, the right to film, photograph, make an audio recording of, and report on meetings of local government bodies in England that are open to the public. The body cannot lawfully require you to obtain prior permission, and a blanket ban on filming would be unlawful.

The right is not unlimited. The chair may take reasonable steps to prevent disruption, and the press can be excluded where the public is lawfully excluded for confidential or exempt items. Comparable openness rules operate in other parts of the UK under separate legislation, so verify the local position — but for English principal councils, parish councils and similar bodies, the 2014 Regulations settle the point in the journalist's favour.

6. Recording in courts is prohibited — with narrow exceptions

Courtrooms are the sharpest exception to the “no general ban” rule. Two long-standing prohibitions apply to everyone, including accredited reporters. Taking a photograph, or making a sketch with a view to publication, in the courtroom or its precincts is an offence under section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. Using a tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound, without the leave of the court, is a contempt under section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The exceptions are narrow and specific. The Court of Appeal has been able to permit broadcasting of certain proceedings since 2013, and the UK Supreme Court livestreams its hearings. Since 2022 the sentencing remarks of some senior judges in the Crown Court may be broadcast under a bespoke order, with only the judge filmed. Live text-based communication — tweeting and emailing copy from the press bench — is generally permitted for accredited journalists at the court's discretion, but audio and video recording are not.

For the detail of what may and may not be filmed and streamed, see our guide to livestreaming and broadcasting sentencing remarks.

7. Recording phone calls and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016

Recording a telephone call that you are a party to is generally lawful in the same way as recording a face-to-face conversation you take part in. The position changes fundamentally when you intercept a communication passing between other people without being a party to it. Unlawful interception of a communication in the course of its transmission is a criminal offence under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which replaced the interception provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

So a journalist recording their own call with a source is on solid ground; a journalist who taps, reroutes or otherwise captures a conversation between two other parties is not. Accessing someone else's voicemail or messages is a separate and serious matter that also engages the Computer Misuse Act 1990. When a source hands you a recording made by intercepting others, treat provenance as a live legal issue. Our Investigatory Powers Act for journalists guide explains the interception offence and the limited defences.

8. Consent, notice and storing recordings securely

Consent is not legally required to record a conversation you are part of, but seeking it changes the analysis: an overt, consented recording rarely raises privacy or subterfuge concerns and is usually the better default for straightforward interviews. Reserve covert methods for situations where the public interest justifies them and open recording would defeat the story.

However a recording is made, treat the file as sensitive personal data. Store originals securely and access-controlled, retain an unedited master, and keep a contemporaneous note of who recorded what, when, and the public-interest justification. Good record-keeping supports both the journalism exemption under the DPA 2018 and any later defence to a privacy or confidence claim.

9. Admissibility and evidential value

A covertly made recording is not automatically inadmissible in legal proceedings. Civil and criminal courts regularly admit relevant recordings, but a court retains a discretion to exclude material that was unfairly obtained, and the manner of gathering will affect the weight given to it. An unedited, well-documented recording is far more useful evidentially than a selectively clipped one.

For newsrooms, the practical takeaway is to preserve the complete original, avoid editing that could be characterised as misleading, and be ready to explain the provenance. A recording that stands up in court is also a recording that stands up to a regulatory complaint and to a claimant's lawyers.

Key legislation

• Data Protection Act 2018 (legislation.gov.uk)
• Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 9 (legislation.gov.uk)
• Criminal Justice Act 1925, section 41 (legislation.gov.uk)
• Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 (legislation.gov.uk)
• Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (legislation.gov.uk)
• IPSO Editors' Code of Practice, Clause 10

Frequently asked questions