It’s no secret that we are glued to our smart­phones. Thanks to tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ments, we have a one stop shop’ device at our fin­ger­tips, which includes access to audio and video recordings.

For many years, Fam­i­ly Lawyers have been pre­sent­ed with secret record­ings tak­en by clients in the hopes that the footage will form valu­able evi­dence against their for­mer spouse. The prob­lem with these record­ings, is that they are not always the Gotcha!’ moment that clien­t’s hope for.

Issues with Secret Recordings 

In New South Wales, the Sur­veil­lance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) pro­hibits, the use of lis­ten­ing devices to record a pri­vate con­ver­sa­tion to which the per­son is, or is not, a par­ty. A lis­ten­ing device is defined as any device capa­ble of being used to over­hear, record, mon­i­tor or lis­ten to a con­ver­sa­tion or words spo­ken to or by any per­son in con­ver­sa­tion’ and a smart­phone falls square­ly with­in this definition. 

There are excep­tions to the pro­hi­bi­tion such as where a par­ty to the con­ver­sa­tion gave their express or implied con­sent to the device being used or where the record­ing is rea­son­ably nec­es­sary for the pro­tec­tion of the law­ful inter­ests of that prin­ci­pal par­ty”.

It’s very impor­tant to think care­ful­ly before you hit record as the max­i­mum penal­ty for breach­ing s 7 of the Act is 100 penal­ty units ($11,000), five years impris­on­ment, or both!

Pro­ba­tive Value

Sec­tion 138(1) of the Evi­dence Act 1995 (Cth) pro­vides that evi­dence obtained in con­tra­ven­tion of an Aus­tralian law is not to be admit­ted unless the desir­abil­i­ty’ of admit­ting the evi­dence out­weighs the unde­sir­abil­i­ty’ of doing so. 

In deter­min­ing whether to admit evi­dence the Court will consider:

  1. the pro­ba­tive val­ue of the evidence
  2. the impor­tance of the evi­dence in the proceedings
  3. and the dif­fi­cul­ty of obtain­ing the evi­dence with­out impro­pri­ety or con­tra­ven­tion of an Aus­tralian law
  4. whether the record­ing will be unfair­ly prej­u­di­cial’ to a par­ty. Note: this is dif­fer­ent to the record­ing being dam­ag­ing to a par­ty’s case. 

Par­ent­ing Proceedings

In the case of Gin & Hing [2019] Fam­CA 779, the Fam­i­ly Court of Aus­tralia deter­mined that the most impor­tant con­sid­er­a­tion, being the best inter­ests of the child in par­ent­ing pro­ceed­ings, engaged the exemp­tion for pro­tec­tion of a legal inter­est’ and there­fore the record­ing was not in con­tra­ven­tion of the Act. In that case, the record­ings were con­sid­ered to pro­tect the par­ty’s legal inter­est as it was used to address alle­ga­tions of fam­i­ly vio­lence, and the record­ings were pro­ba­tive’.

In cir­cum­stances where there are alle­ga­tions made in rela­tion to Fam­i­ly Vio­lence and the par­ties are seek­ing orders in rela­tion to par­ent­ing mat­ters, the Court may take extra cau­tion and have high­er regard to evi­dence that bears an impact on the chil­dren’s best interests. 

Not a Gotcha!’ moment

Whilst there are many instances where the Court will admit audio/​video record­ing evi­dence, there are also many cas­es where notwith­stand­ing allow­ing the evi­dence, a neg­a­tive find­ing has been made against the recorder’.

It is impor­tant that you do not cre­ate evi­dence that you think makes your fam­i­ly law case look good’. Judges have a wealth of expe­ri­ence and are skilled at scru­ti­n­is­ing evi­dence. It is like­ly that if you have set up’ your evi­dence, led your ex on, pro­voked an alter­ca­tion or made the record­ing in an attempt to por­tray your­self in a favourable light, the Court will see right through it.

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

10 Tips For Stra­ta Reme­di­al Con­struc­tion Contracts

Are you won­der­ing why your stra­ta work to repair or main­tain your stra­ta build­ing is over bud­get, rid­dled with delays…

Ope­nAI’s screen­less future on pause amidst trade mark dispute

Back­groundIn ear­ly May, Ope­nAI sur­prised the tech world with news of an esti­mat­ed $6.4 bil­lion part­ner­ship and acqui­si­tion involv­ing ​“io”…

Impor­tant Stra­ta Law Changes — Effec­tive 1 July 2025

The Stra­ta Schemes Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment Act 2025 (Amend­ing Act) intro­duces fur­ther reform in Gov­ern­men­t’s ongo­ing review of the stra­ta legislation. On 1 July…

In the News

Press Release | New Senior Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Joshua Bernie

Joshua brings exten­sive expe­ri­ence in stra­ta and con­struc­tion dis­pute res­o­lu­tion, with over 10 years’ of expe­ri­ence in both Aus­tralia and the…

Press Release | We are pleased to announce five senior pro­mo­tions in key prac­tice areas of the firm effec­tive, 1 July 2025

Con­grat­u­la­tions:Maris­sa Arag­o­na — AssociateRamesh Chamala — AssociateAaron Boz — AssociateWilliam Clement — Senior AssociateKel­lie Van Mun­ster — Spe­cial Counsel “I am per­son­al­ly delight­ed…

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 27 June 2025

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information