Tag Archive for: Potter v The King

You are here: / / Potter v The King

Posts

JSH Law Resources and Guidance for Litigants in Person – practical family court information explained in plain English.© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.

Can a secret recording be used as evidence in the Family Court?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A secret recording can capture an admission, expose abuse behind closed doors or prove that a professional account is inaccurate. It can also invade a child’s privacy, escalate conflict and seriously damage the recorder’s case. The legal position is not simply “recording is allowed” or “recording is illegal”: lawfulness, admissibility, authenticity and evidential weight are separate questions.

JSH Law | Evidence, domestic abuse and family justice

Secret Recordings in the Family Court: What England and Wales Can Learn from Australia and the Rest of the World

A secret recording may capture the admission, threat or controlling behaviour that nobody else sees. It may also invade a child’s privacy, amount to harassment, derail proceedings or damage the case of the person who made it. Following a significant Australian High Court judgment, this article examines how courts around the world approach covert recordings—and explains what litigants in person in England and Wales need to do before trying to rely on one.

Updated: 6 August 2026

The short answer

Yes, a covert recording can sometimes be used in family proceedings in England and Wales. But it is not automatically admissible merely because it appears relevant, and it is not automatically excluded merely because it was made secretly or may have been obtained improperly.

The court will consider relevance, evidential value, authenticity, completeness, fairness, privacy, proportionality and—above all in children proceedings—the welfare of the child. The reason for making the recording and the way it was obtained may become evidence about the recorder’s own behaviour.

Safety comes before evidence

Do not confront an abusive person or try to engineer an admission if doing so could place you or a child at risk. A recording is not a safety plan. If there is immediate danger, call 999. Evidence can be important, but no piece of evidence is worth escalating a dangerous situation.

The Australian case: a recording made to protect bodily autonomy

On 5 August 2026, the High Court of Australia delivered its unanimous judgment in Potter (A Pseudonym) v The King [2026] HCA 25.

The appellant had been convicted in South Australia of raping his wife while she was asleep. Before a later assault, the complainant had secretly recorded a conversation on her mobile phone in which he admitted sexually assaulting her while she slept.

She explained that she made the recording to remind herself not to return to the relationship. The appellant argued that the recording had been made contrary to South Australia’s Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and therefore could not be used at his trial.

The High Court rejected that argument. It held that making the recording was reasonably necessary to protect the complainant’s lawful interest in her bodily autonomy and integrity. Her circumstances—including her vulnerability, health problems, responsibility for two young children, limited support and continuing exposure to the appellant in the home—were central to that assessment.

“The interest of a person in not being raped is an interest deserving of the very strongest protection.”

Crucially, the court did not dismiss the recording as merely a private reminder that could have been replaced by a written note. It recognised that hearing the perpetrator’s stark admission could be a much more powerful reminder of the danger she faced.

The judgment is important because it takes the psychological and practical reality of abuse seriously. A victim-survivor may know that something terrible has happened but still be pulled back towards the relationship through fear, dependency, isolation, trauma, hope or coercive control. Evidence may serve a protective purpose before it ever becomes litigation evidence.

What the Australian judgment does not mean

This was a criminal appeal applying South Australian surveillance legislation. It did not decide that all secret recordings are lawful, that every recording of alleged abuse must be admitted, or that the same rule automatically applies in the family courts of Australia, England and Wales or any other country.

Australian surveillance law also varies between states and territories. The judgment must not be reduced to the dangerous social-media message that “the High Court says you can now secretly record anyone”.

Its deeper principle is more careful: the court examined the purpose of the recording, the nature of the lawful interest being protected and the victim-survivor’s actual circumstances at the time.

Three different questions: lawfulness, admissibility and weight

People often ask, “Is a secret recording legal?” That is only the first question.

1. Was it lawful to make?

This may depend on privacy, surveillance, data protection, harassment, computer-access and communications law, as well as whether the recorder participated in the conversation.

2. Can it be admitted?

A court may admit relevant evidence despite concerns about how it was obtained—or exclude material that would otherwise be admissible to deal with the case fairly and proportionately.

3. What weight will it carry?

A recording may be genuine but still misleading, incomplete, prompted, taken out of context or of little help in deciding the issues before the court.

A recording can therefore be lawful to make but excluded from a family case. Conversely, in England and Wales, evidence obtained improperly is not necessarily excluded automatically—although the person who obtained it may still face criticism, costs, an injunction or other consequences.

What is happening around the world?

No responsible article can state a single rule for “the whole world”. Recording law differs not only between countries but, in Australia, Canada and the United States, between states, territories or provinces. Family-court evidential rules may also differ from the criminal law regulating how a recording was made.

The following comparative survey covers representative common-law and civil-law jurisdictions across Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America and Oceania.

Jurisdiction Making the recording Court approach Practical lesson
England and Wales There is no simple statutory “one-party consent” rule governing every face-to-face recording by private individuals. Legality depends on the circumstances, purpose and later use. Harassment, privacy, data protection or other wrongdoing may arise. No automatic exclusion solely because evidence was obtained improperly. The family court controls evidence under FPR 22.1 and considers relevance, authenticity, fairness, proportionality and welfare. Tell the court early. Preserve and disclose the complete original. Do not secretly record children or hearings.
Australia Surveillance legislation varies by state and territory. In Potter, South Australia’s protective-interest exception applied because the recording was reasonably necessary to protect bodily autonomy and integrity. Lawfulness and admissibility remain separate, fact-sensitive questions. Improperly obtained evidence may be excluded, but the statutory and evidential framework varies. Purpose, vulnerability, safety and the seriousness of the interest being protected matter.
India Privacy arguments remain relevant, but the Supreme Court took a broad approach to spousal recordings in Vibhor Garg v Neha, 2025 INSC 829. The court held that secretly recorded conversations could be placed before the Family Court in matrimonial proceedings. It relied on the exception to marital-communications privilege and the Family Court’s wide evidential powers. Broad admissibility may assist truth-finding but also risks normalising surveillance between spouses. Admissible does not mean decisive or ethically justified.
Canada Section 184 of the federal Criminal Code generally permits an interception where the originator or intended recipient consents. This usually allows a participant to record their own conversation, but not to bug conversations between other people. Family courts commonly discourage secret recordings because of reliability, conflict and public-policy concerns. They may nevertheless admit compelling evidence where its value outweighs those concerns. “Legal to make” does not mean “wise to make” or “certain to be admitted”.
United States Federal law generally permits participant or one-party-consent recording, but state laws can be stricter. California, for example, generally protects confidential communications while creating specific domestic-violence and child-protection exceptions. Admissibility is state-specific. Some custody courts have considered recordings even where the method of obtaining them was problematic; others exclude them or treat the recording conduct as relevant to parenting. Never rely on a general statement that the US is a “one-party country”. Check the law of the particular state.
New Zealand The Crimes Act 1961 contains an exemption where the person intercepting a private communication is a party to it. Recording other people’s conversation is a different matter. Relevance, reliability, privacy and child-welfare considerations remain. Family Court hearings cannot be recorded without the judge’s express permission. Participant-consent legislation does not remove the family court’s welfare and case-management controls.
France Article 226-1 of the Penal Code criminalises deliberately recording private or confidential words without consent in circumstances engaging private life. In 2023, the Cour de cassation held that unlawfully or unfairly obtained evidence is not automatically excluded from civil proceedings. The judge must decide whether it is indispensable and whether the interference is strictly proportionate. A court’s ability to consider evidence does not retrospectively make the method used to obtain it lawful.
Germany Section 201 of the German Criminal Code criminalises unauthorised audio recording of another person’s privately spoken words and unauthorised use or disclosure of such a recording. Privacy and personality rights are strong. Any attempt to rely on covert material requires careful, case-specific advice; admissibility cannot be assumed. International and cross-border families must not assume the English position applies while abroad.
South Africa Section 4 of RICA generally permits a private person to intercept a communication to which they are a party, unless it is done for the purpose of committing an offence. Relevance, authenticity, constitutional privacy and the child’s best interests remain important. Publication or wider use can raise separate issues. Participant recording and unrestricted surveillance are not the same thing.
Brazil The Federal Supreme Court’s Tema 237 states that evidence consisting of a recording made by one participant without the other participant’s knowledge is lawful. Brazil’s Civil Procedure Code also permits parties to record civil hearings independently of judicial authorisation, although family cases remain subject to confidentiality and publication restrictions. Brazil draws a very different line from England and Wales on recording proceedings themselves.

The global direction is not simply towards “record everything”. The emerging approach is purpose-specific: protect serious interests, test relevance and proportionality, preserve authenticity, avoid involving children and distinguish targeted evidence-gathering from coercive or obsessive surveillance.

The position in England and Wales

In May 2025, the Family Justice Council published detailed guidance entitled Covert Recordings in Family Law Proceedings Concerning Children. It was produced for professionals and people representing themselves.

The guidance identifies three main categories:

  • recordings of other family members, including the other parent;
  • recordings of professionals such as Cafcass officers, social workers or experts; and
  • recordings of children.

The category matters. A recording of an adult making an unprompted admission of violence is very different from a parent hiding a device in a child’s clothing and sending that child into the other parent’s home.

No automatic exclusion

In civil and family proceedings, there is no standalone rule requiring every piece of improperly obtained evidence to be excluded. However, rule 22.1 of the Family Procedure Rules gives the court wide control over:

  • the issues on which evidence is required;
  • the nature of the evidence required;
  • the way evidence is placed before the court; and
  • whether otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded.

The court therefore conducts a balancing exercise. It will ask whether the recording helps prove or disprove a fact that actually needs to be decided, whether considering it is proportionate and whether admitting it is compatible with dealing with the case justly.

Hearsay does not necessarily prevent its use

Most covert recordings will amount to hearsay because an out-of-court statement is being relied upon as evidence of what was said or of the truth of what was said.

In children proceedings, the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993 generally removes the rule against hearsay where the evidence concerns the upbringing, maintenance or welfare of a child. That does not mean the judge must believe it. Admissibility and evidential weight remain separate.

The recording may help—or seriously backfire

English family cases demonstrate both possibilities.

When a recording exposed wrongdoing

In Re F (Care Proceedings: Failures of Expert) [2016] EWHC 2149 (Fam), a recording helped reveal that a mother had been significantly misquoted and adversely misrepresented by an expert.

In Medway Council v A & Ors [2015] EWFC B66, recordings exposed racial abuse and hostility by a foster carer. They became important because the parents’ complaints had previously been treated dismissively.

When recording harmed the recorder’s case

In M v F (Covert Recording of Children) [2016] EWFC 29, a father and his partner recorded a child extensively, including by hiding devices in her clothing.

The recordings produced no useful information, increased costs, damaged relationships and raised serious concerns about the adults’ ability to understand and meet the child’s emotional needs.

This is the central reality: the content of a recording may not be the most important evidence it produces. The fact that a parent engaged in intrusive surveillance may itself become relevant to the welfare decision.

Domestic abuse and coercive control often happen where nobody else can see

Domestic abuse cases create a genuine evidential difficulty. Abuse is commonly carried out in private. The perpetrator may present as calm, credible and cooperative to professionals while behaving entirely differently in the home.

A recording may capture:

  • an admission of violence, sexual assault or threatening behaviour;
  • threats concerning the child, money, housing, immigration or court proceedings;
  • monitoring, humiliation, intimidation or repeated verbal degradation;
  • pressure to withdraw allegations or abandon an application;
  • instructions about what the victim or child must tell Cafcass, police or the court;
  • an attempt to prevent contact with relatives or support services;
  • a significant difference between the person’s private conduct and formal account; or
  • the tone, persistence and cumulative nature of coercive behaviour that a written message cannot convey.

That potential value must be recognised. Telling a victim-survivor that covert recording is always wrong can erase the reality that abuse is frequently hidden and routinely denied.

But the opposite approach—encouraging everybody in a high-conflict case to record constantly—is equally unsafe. Persistent surveillance can itself be coercive control, stalking, harassment or litigation abuse. An abusive parent may record selectively, manufacture confrontations, provoke reactions or use surveillance to make the other parent feel watched at all times.

The court should examine power and purpose

A targeted recording made by a frightened person during a conversation concerning threats or serious abuse is not equivalent to a campaign of monitoring an ex-partner, bugging a child or repeatedly manufacturing confrontations. Treating every covert recording as morally identical would obscure the dynamics of abuse.

The Australian judgment provides a useful model because it examined why the victim made the recording, what she needed to protect and the reality of the situation in which she was living.

Secretly recording a child is fundamentally different

The Family Justice Council guidance is clear that covertly recording children rarely promotes their welfare, whatever the parent’s intention.

This includes:

  • sewing or placing a recorder in a child’s coat, bag or clothing;
  • leaving a device in the child’s bedroom or another private space;
  • recording the child’s calls with the other parent;
  • asking the child repeated or leading questions while recording;
  • filming a child’s distress at handover to prove resistance to contact;
  • sending the child into a meeting with a hidden device; or
  • using a child’s smartwatch, telephone or other device as a surveillance tool.

A child may later experience the recording as a profound breach of trust. It can place the child in the middle of adult litigation and turn them into an evidence-gatherer against a parent or professional.

Leading questions also create reliability problems. A child may learn which answers a parent appears to want, repeat allegations to stop the questioning or become confused about whether words and ideas came from their own memory or from an adult.

Do not repeatedly question a child to produce evidence. If a child spontaneously says something concerning, make a calm contemporaneous note using their exact words, record the date and circumstances, avoid follow-up interrogation and report safeguarding concerns through the appropriate professional or legal route.

If a recording effectively becomes an informal assessment or examination of a child for the purpose of expert evidence, section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 may also be engaged. Evidence resulting from an unauthorised assessment can be inadmissible unless the court rules otherwise.

Recording Cafcass, social workers, experts and meetings

Parents often want to record professionals because they:

  • have previously been misquoted;
  • struggle to take notes because of disability, trauma or anxiety;
  • want an accurate record of decisions and safeguarding concerns;
  • have experienced omissions or inaccuracies in professional notes; or
  • do not trust that a formal report will reflect what was actually said.

Those concerns are not inherently unreasonable. The Family Justice Council records Cafcass guidance that there is no legal reason why a parent or carer should not record their own interview, subject to any direction from the court. The Cafcass officer may state in their report that the interview was recorded.

The safer approach is usually to request an overt recording in advance and agree:

  • who will make the recording;
  • whether both sides will receive a copy;
  • how it will be stored securely;
  • who may listen to it;
  • whether permission is required before it is used in proceedings; and
  • that it will not be edited, published or circulated on social media.

Some specialist assessments, particularly neuropsychological testing, may be undermined by recording because it can affect the validity of the process or compromise protected testing material. Recording should therefore be discussed before the assessment begins.

If a professional refuses a reasonable request to record, ask for the refusal and reasons in writing. You can also request written minutes, submit written corrections promptly and ask for your corrections to be retained with the original record.

Never secretly record a court hearing

Recording a family court hearing without permission can amount to contempt of court. This applies to in-person, telephone, video and remote hearings.

Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits the unauthorised use of a sound-recording device in court. Additional restrictions apply to filming, photography, remote participation, publication and transmission.

Do not record the screen, use another telephone to capture the hearing, take screenshots, activate automatic meeting transcription or allow an AI note-taking bot to join without express permission.

If you need an accurate record, use the official process. HMCTS permits applications for an official audio recording or transcript using Form EX107. Judicial approval may be required, particularly in private family proceedings, and costs may apply.

I already have a recording—what should I do?

If a potentially relevant recording already exists, do not simply attach a short clip to your statement or send hours of audio to Cafcass. Handle it as evidence.

  1. Preserve the complete original.
    Keep the original file in its native format. Do not rename, trim, enhance, compress, filter or overwrite it. Create a separate working copy.
  2. Back it up securely.
    Keep an untouched copy in a secure location. Do not store the only copy on the telephone used to make it.
  3. Record its provenance.
    Note the date, approximate time, location, device used, people present, how the recording began and ended, and whether there are any gaps.
  4. Identify the specific issue it proves.
    Do not say only that it “shows what the other parent is like”. Link it to an issue the court must decide: an alleged threat, admission, breach, incident of abuse, safeguarding concern or material discrepancy in professional evidence.
  5. Prepare a neutral schedule.
    For each proposed recording, list the filename, date, duration, participants, short description, relevant allegation or issue and the important timestamps.
  6. Prepare an accurate transcript.
    Identify each speaker, include timestamps and mark unclear words as “[inaudible]”. Do not improve grammar or silently remove words. Make clear who prepared the transcript.
  7. Tell the court early.
    The Family Justice Council warns against trial by ambush. Late production may cause an adjournment, additional hearings, delay and costs.
  8. Ask for case-management directions.
    The court may require a Form C2 application on notice. Explain what was recorded, how and why it was recorded, whether it has been edited, and why it is relevant.
  9. Provide the other parties with proper access if ordered.
    Reliance on a selected excerpt while withholding the remainder is likely to create serious fairness and authenticity concerns.
  10. Keep it private.
    Do not upload it to Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, WhatsApp groups or campaign pages. Publication can engage contempt, family-court confidentiality, data protection, privacy, harassment and child-identification restrictions.

A useful witness-statement format

“On [date], during a conversation between [identify participants], I made an audio recording without [name]’s knowledge. I did so because [brief factual explanation—not argument]. I have preserved the original, complete and unedited file. The recording is approximately [duration] and is relevant to [identify the pleaded allegation or issue]. At approximately [timestamp], [briefly identify the relevant words or event]. I notified the court and the other parties of the recording on [date]. I will provide the complete original and an accurate transcript in accordance with the court’s directions.”

Possible directions to request

Depending on the case, a litigant may ask the court to consider directions dealing with:

  • whether permission to rely on identified recordings is required;
  • disclosure of complete unedited files by a specified date;
  • preparation of an agreed transcript or identification of disputed passages;
  • the precise issues for which each recording may be used;
  • secure filing and access arrangements;
  • whether a short admissibility hearing is necessary;
  • whether authenticity is genuinely disputed;
  • whether expert analysis would be necessary and proportionate; and
  • how the child’s privacy and welfare will be protected.

A forensic expert should not be instructed unilaterally where Part 25 and court permission apply. Expert analysis can also be expensive and disproportionate unless authenticity is genuinely in dispute and the recording is important to the outcome.

AI has made authenticity a much bigger issue

Recordings can now be edited, generated, enhanced and imitated with consumer technology. Voice cloning and deepfake video mean that “it sounds like them” or “the room looks familiar” may no longer be enough.

In Matter of M.S., decided in February 2026, New York’s highest court overturned Family Court findings that had depended upon video evidence because the videos had not been adequately authenticated. The majority expressly considered the growing ability to create convincing manipulated material.

For family proceedings in England and Wales, this makes the Family Justice Council’s emphasis on completeness and authenticity even more important.

Do not “improve” the original

Noise reduction, automatic clipping, voice isolation, speed adjustment or AI enhancement may be useful for creating a working copy, but the untouched original must remain available. Any processing should be documented and disclosed.

AI-generated transcripts must be checked manually against the recording. Automated tools frequently misidentify speakers, omit short words such as “not”, invent punctuation and convert unclear audio into confident but inaccurate text.

A transcript is an aid, not a replacement for the recording. If the words are disputed, the judge may need the original audio, the context and evidence from the people involved.

What England and Wales should learn

The international comparison reveals several lessons for the family justice system.

1. Purpose and power matter

The law should distinguish a targeted recording made to preserve evidence of serious abuse from persistent surveillance used to intimidate or control. The Australian focus on bodily autonomy and the person’s circumstances provides a principled way to make that distinction.

2. Children must not become surveillance devices

Across jurisdictions, courts repeatedly warn that bugging children, recording their private conversations and questioning them for litigation damages trust and increases conflict. The child’s welfare must not be sacrificed in the hunt for evidence.

3. Professionals should facilitate overt recording

People affected by trauma, disability, neurodivergence or language barriers may reasonably need an accurate record of an important interview or assessment. Clear organisational policies allowing overt recording can reduce suspicion, avoid disputes over notes and make covert recording less likely.

4. Authenticity must be addressed early

The rise of synthetic media means courts need proportionate procedures for preserving original files, recording provenance and resolving genuine challenges without turning every case into expensive digital-forensic litigation.

5. Litigants in person need usable directions

A person without a lawyer may not understand that sending a clip to the judge is procedurally inadequate. The 2025 Family Justice Council guidance is a major step forward, but courts should provide short standard directions covering disclosure, transcripts, authenticity, relevance and privacy whenever covert material is identified.

The right approach is neither “secret recordings are always wrong” nor “record everything”. It is evidence-led, safety-aware and child-focused: what was recorded, why, how, whether it is genuine, what it proves, whether there was a safer alternative and what impact the recording itself has had on the child and family.

Frequently asked questions

Can a secret recording be used in the Family Court?

Sometimes. The court will consider relevance, probative value, authenticity, completeness, privacy, fairness, proportionality and welfare. It may admit, limit or exclude the recording.

Is it illegal to record my ex-partner without telling them?

Not automatically, but there is no universal permission to record. The circumstances, purpose, location, method and later use matter. Persistent monitoring may engage harassment, controlling behaviour, data protection or privacy law.

Can I record an abusive threat or admission?

A targeted recording may have evidential value, but safety comes first. Do not provoke or confront an abusive person if this could increase the danger. Preserve any existing recording and obtain advice about reporting, safeguarding and court directions.

Can I hide a recorder in my child’s clothing or bag?

This is strongly discouraged and is almost always likely to be viewed as contrary to the child’s privacy and welfare. It may seriously damage your case even if you believed you were protecting the child.

Can I record Cafcass or a social worker?

Ask openly and agree the arrangements in advance. Cafcass guidance recognises that a parent may record their own interview, subject to any court direction, but the existence of the recording may be included in the report and the court may direct disclosure.

Can I secretly record a remote hearing?

No. Unauthorised recording of an in-person or remote court hearing can amount to contempt of court. Request an official audio recording or transcript through the proper HMCTS process.

Can I post the recording online after filing it in court?

Do not assume so. Family proceedings are subject to strict privacy, identification and publication restrictions. Sharing a recording may also breach data protection, privacy, harassment or court-order restrictions.

Can I rely on a short clip?

The court is likely to require access to the complete, unedited recording so that context and authenticity can be assessed. A selected clip may be misleading even if the words within it are genuine.

Will an admission on a recording automatically prove my case?

No. The court will consider what was actually admitted, the circumstances of the conversation, whether the admission was prompted or ambiguous, whether the recording is complete and how it fits with the rest of the evidence.

Does this article apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland?

No. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems and procedures. Specific advice should be obtained for the relevant jurisdiction.

Final thoughts

Recordings can reveal what happens behind closed doors. They can expose abuse, challenge inaccurate professional accounts and preserve evidence that would otherwise be denied. The courts must not dismiss that reality.

But surveillance can also be abusive. It can violate a child’s privacy, manufacture evidence, prolong proceedings and deepen conflict. The family court must therefore look beyond the mere existence of a recording and examine the entire context in which it was created and used.

The Australian High Court’s recognition of bodily autonomy is an important development. Its real value for England and Wales lies not in encouraging more secret recording, but in requiring courts to distinguish protective evidence-gathering by vulnerable victim-survivors from intrusive, coercive or litigation-driven surveillance.

Need help presenting digital evidence in a family case?

JSH Law supports litigants in person with reviewing recordings, organising digital evidence, preparing recording schedules and chronologies, identifying relevant timestamps, drafting witness statements and Form C2 applications, responding to disputed Cafcass or social-work accounts and preparing focused evidence for hearings.

The aim is not to overwhelm the court with hours of material. It is to identify what genuinely matters, preserve it properly and present it in a fair, proportionate and child-focused way.

Contact JSH Law

Sources and further reading

Legal information disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about family proceedings in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on the facts of an individual case. Recording law is highly fact-sensitive and differs between jurisdictions. Admissibility, evidential weight and the consequences of making or sharing a recording are matters for the court.

© JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.