Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 93–107 | Cite as

Does the Use of Voice Lie Detection Equipment in the United Kingdom Breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010?



Separating truth from lies has long been the goal of the legal system. Unfortunately, determining what is true is as difficult as it is important. Despite the view held by most people that they are able to tell when being lied to, the reality is that humans are very poor lie detectors. In an effort to overcome this fundamental flaw in human abilities, we have turned to technology to fill the gap. One of the many available technologies relies on the computer analysis of the voice of the statement maker. This technique is said by some to be able to highlight features in the voice of the speaker which indicate a high risk that they are not telling the truth. Whether or not the technology works, and the legal and ethical implications of such a finding, are beyond the scope of this paper. Rather, this paper assumes that the system achieves its stated aim, and examines the implications of the use of such devices on the public in terms of Human Rights and the provisions of the Equality Act 2010.


Lie detection Voice analysis Human rights Discrimination 


  1. Adams, L., K. Oldfield, J. Barlow, A. Large. 2010. Voice risk analysis pilots: Perspectives from staff, claimants and potential claimants. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 716.
  2. British Psychological Society Working Party Final Report. 2004. A review of the current scientific status and fields of application of Polygraphic Deception Detection.
  3. Hamsberger, J.D., H. Hollien, C.A. Martin, and K.A. Hollien. 2009. Stress and deception in speech: Evaluating layered voice analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences 54: 642–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. National Research Council and National Academies of Sciences, Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. 2003. The polygraph and lie detection. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  5. United States General Accounting Office. 2001 Federal agency views on the potential application of “brain fingerprinting”. Report to the Honorable Charles E. Grassley, U. S. Senate.
  6. Vrij, A. 2004. Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology 9: 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Vrij, A. 2008. Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Police Sciences DivisionUniversity of GlamorganPontypriddUK
  2. 2.Phillips Green and Murphy SolicitorsSwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations