Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has been in trouble for tape recording conversations with members of the government. To my mind this is only sensible and I can't understand why it isn't common practice. Admittedly there are security concerns - the recordings would need to be secure. If nothing else, they could provide a valuable historical document (re: the Kennedy tapes made at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis). I can fully understand why an impartial record of a conversation with the Powers That Be could be seen to be desirable. I think I heard on the radio that the tape was made as there was no notetaker present - I must admit to faling to understand why notes (which could be made in error) are okay, but a recording is not.
I'm not a lawyer, but if memory serves, taping a phone call is fine with consent. Without consent is it the case that the tape cannot be made, or that the tape cannot be played to a third party? (Edit: I find that this is the case)
I must admit to being amused that the conversation being taped was upon the subject of the use of intercept evidence.