Tripp and Tripp

[2010] FamCA 691

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TRIPP & TRIPP [2010] FamCA 691

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Child related proceedings – audio recordings said to have been made by mother during an interview between the single expert and the subject children – application that a copy of the audio recordings and transcript of their content be given to the single expert prior to her giving evidence – issues of the interests of justice and public interest – copy of recordings and transcript to be provided to the single expert

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)

APPLICANT: Mr Tripp

RESPONDENT: Ms Tripp

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7895 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 5 August 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

DATE HEARD: By written submissions

JUDGMENT OF: Justice Fowler

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: The father sought not to be heard on the application

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Richards

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Gillies

Orders

1. Leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to make available to the independent expert, Dr M, for review copies of the audio recording procured by the mother of the interviews between Dr M with the relevant persons and children in these proceedings and a document said to be a transcript thereof and produced by the mother on call to the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Tripp and Tripp is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7895 of 2007

MR TRIPP

Applicant

And

MS TRIPP

Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. During the course of these proceedings the mother procured, it appears contrary to the provisions of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), recordings of interviews between the Court-appointed independent expert, Dr M, and the children of the marriage.

2. The expert has made a report to the Court.  The mother challenges not only some of the conclusions of the report but whether it accurately sets out what occurred in the conference.

3. The recordings, and what is said to be a transcript of them, have been produced to the applicant father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer pursuant to a call to produce the documents.

4. There is no evidence that the recordings were made other than without the consent of Dr M or that she had any knowledge of them.

5. The existence of the recordings was revealed by the mother in the pressure of cross-examination by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Prior to that occasion, the mother gave no hint of their existence.

1. It is asserted by the mother that Mr Richardson SC, who appeared on a day when Dr M was thought likely to give her evidence (which event did not occur on that day and which is to occur at a future date) has been retained specifically for the purpose of cross-examining the witness on the material contained in the recordings.

2. It…