Janssen & Janssen

In *Janssen & Janssen*, heard by McClelland J, the dispute concerned the admissibility of audio recordings and their transcripts made by the mother of exchanges between the parties. The father objected to the admission of this evidence on the grounds that the recordings were made without his consent.

The court was required to determine whether the audio recordings and their transcripts were admissible in the proceedings, particularly in light of the father's objection and serious allegations of family violence made against him. A further issue was whether the rules of evidence under the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) should apply to evidence concerning specific events and alleged threats made by the father regarding the children.

McClelland J found that the audio recordings fell within the exception provided by s 7(3)(b) of the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW), as they were reasonably necessary to protect the lawful interests of the mother. The court then exercised its discretion to admit the recordings and transcripts into evidence. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that "exceptional" circumstances applied, warranting the application of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) to evidence relating to the events of 10 September 2013 and the alleged threats made by the father concerning the children, pursuant to s 69ZT(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). A certificate was issued to the mother under s 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) in relation to her affidavit.

The court ordered that a certificate issue pursuant to s 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) in relation to the whole of the mother's affidavit. The transcript of the audio recordings was marked as Exhibit 2, and the audio recordings themselves were marked as Exhibit 3. The court also ordered that, except in relation to the events of 10 September 2013 and the alleged threats made by the father concerning the children, it would apply sections 69ZT(1) and 69ZT(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).