Are texts admissible in court?

Metalface Mark

Metalface Mark

Metalface Mark

Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2005
Posts
16,206
Location
Paisley
A quick question for legal eagles, but are texts admissible in court?

My girlfriend is owed a huge sum of money by her ex but he will not put anything down in writing to say he owns the debt (as its in her name), but has admitted in texts that it is his debt. Just wondering whether this is enough to start legal proceedings with. She's visiting her lawyer shortly to discuss things again but I wondered if anyone could shed any light on it prior to her visit.
 
Firstly I would imagine you would have to prove that the txt was sent by him specifically and not just sent on his phone, anyone can send a text from any phone......so I suspect it may be difficult if that is the only evidence....
 
Texts are admissible, but the real question is: will they carry any weight?

The lawyer you see will be in a better position to help, but I suspect there will be other evidence - where did the money go?
 
Can the mobile phone company be ordered to release sms records in a civil case? I think the texts on her phone could be reason for suspicion but I would be amazed if they were admissible on their own - the records of the phone company however are.
 
This is GD isn't it?

We are going to need pics of said girlfriend before a definitive legal opinion can be given
 
the shadow said:
Anyone could have been typing on the phone case closed
Click to expand...

So why do mobile phone records commonly crop up in criminal prosecutions?

That fuss about texts between the culture secretary's advisor and the murdochs could have been dealt with so easily if they'd only known about this little loop hole.
 
I dont know the answer but I hope if they are admissible in court that the records would have to come from the sender or receivers Telco and not from the handset directly - it's all too easy to fake text messages as received on Android.
 
Telescopi said:
So why do mobile phone records commonly crop up in criminal prosecutions?

That fuss about texts between the culture secretary's advisor and the murdochs could have been dealt with so easily if they'd only known about this little loop hole.
Click to expand...

Because they are used as corroborative evidence rather than the only evidence......like fingerprints I suspect they are not used as the primary evidence otherwise it would be pretty easy to frame someone........Basically there must be additional evidence that attests to their authenticity and they are supported by an appropiate chain of evidence with regard to the charge they are being used to support.
 
Last edited:
She also has emails where he has admitted the debt and things like that, she does have a few sources, the problem is anytime they have a disagreement he just says he will stop paying money and wont pay off his debt.

Its all hugely frustrating and completely needless, as I said both sides need their heads cracked together.
 
Metalface Mark said:
She also has emails where he has admitted the debt and things like that, she does have a few sources, the problem is anytime they have a disagreement he just says he will stop paying money and wont pay off his debt.

Its all hugely frustrating and completely needless, as I said both sides need their heads cracked together.
Click to expand...

If she has a chain of evidence then I would suspect that they will be allowed by any magistrate. That's not a legal answer btw, just what I think is a common sense one. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom