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

Res­i­den­tial Ten­an­cies Act 2010 (NSW) reforms and oblig­a­tions of land­lords — effec­tive from 19 May 2025

Intro­duc­tionThe Res­i­den­tial Ten­an­cies Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act) and the Res­i­den­tial Ten­an­cies Reg­u­la­tion 2019 (NSW) (the Reg­u­la­tions) have under­gone some sig­nif­i­cant…

Fail­ing to Reg­is­ter a PPSR Secu­ri­ty Inter­est on Time – Legal Risks and Options

Intro­duc­tionTime­ly reg­is­tra­tion of secu­ri­ty inter­ests under the Per­son­al Prop­er­ty Secu­ri­ties Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) is essen­tial for secured cred­i­tors to…

Con­struc­tion con­tracts are more than just a doc­u­ment — remove con­trac­tu­al claus­es at your peril

Your con­struc­tion con­tract will map out the path­way to your build­ing project com­plet­ing on time and with­in bud­get and detail­ing…

In the News

Press Release | New Part­ner Appoint­ment — Mark Glynn

With over two decades in the indus­try, Mark is a recog­nised front-end con­struc­tion lawyer spe­cial­ist with­in the build­ing and con­struc­tion indus­try. Mark…

Press Release | New Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Hugo Mahony

“As we con­tin­ue to expand in line with our strate­gic vision, Hugo’s deep knowl­edge and expe­ri­ence in Com­mer­cial, Cor­po­rate, IP…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Police and Safe­Work are inves­ti­gat­ing MAFS, but the show keeps win­ning the rat­ings race”, pub­lished on ABC News on 6 April 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Police and Safe­Work are inves­ti­gat­ing MAFS, but the show keeps win­ning the rat­ings…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information