1. As a general rule, material that a party wants to use as evidence needs to be
(i) Relevant to the question being decided
(ii) Reliable
(iii) First hand
(iii) Logically probative of what it's supposedly proof of
(iv) Preferably, lawfully obtained.
2. In Australia, it can be an offence for a private citizen to make telephone recordings;
Because of that, any recordings you might make as a private person are not always and automatically admissible as evidence.
And you can be separately prosecuted for making them.
3. It can also be an offence to record in-person conversations without the knowledge and consent of those involved.
Because of that, any recordings you make are not always and automatically admissible as evidence.
And you can be separately prosecuted for making them.
4. Same for video.
5. Even though it is far less bound by the rules of evidence than other courts,
the Family Court in particular does not always and automatically admit into evidence
material which is unlawfully obtained <
click here for a relevant news article>
6. The court has a discretion to admit into evidence material that is unlawfully obtained.
It also has a discretion to exclude it.
In any event, you will be required to disclose its existence in advance.
The court may not allow you to "ambush" the other party with unlawfully obtained material.
7. Recordings of 000 calls might be admissible, because they are created by operation of law.
However, the court might decide to limit what you can use them to prove.
For example, a recording might be admissible to prove that police were called, but might not be admissible as proof that Person X assaulted Person Y (as the caller might be claiming in the recording).
8. By comparison to item 7, material recorded in the normal course of business (such as footage filmed by shopping centre security as part of its normal operations) might not be admissible, unless it is relevant to a question of fact. You also can't use it to prove matters with which the person depicted has not been charged (or otherwise dealt with).
9. Both 7 and 8 above assume that you can gain access to that kind of material.
You may need to subpoena it.
10. What you call "verbal information to Party C" (item 5 in your list) seems, at first look,
to be textbook hearsay evidence.
The law around hearsay evidence can be complex and confusing.
At the very least, depending on what it is, how many hands it's been through, what you mean to prove by it, and whether or not Persons A, B, and C are available to give evidence, you may well find it excluded.
There are many exceptions, ifs, buts, and unless-es.
For the Family Law matter(s), you may find
this document helpful.
I would like to understand whether the following artefacts are admissible as evidence under the following courts:
a) Magistrates Court for an intervention order contested hearing
b) Family Court
The artefacts are as follows:
1) Video recording taken without any parties knowing (video recordings were taken due to escalating conflict)
2) Audio recordings taken on mobile phone conversation without the other party knowing
3) Security video footage of the public court area
4) Triple Zero operator audio recordings calling for police attendance
5) Verbal information provided by Party C to Party A. Party A uses Party C's information against Party B.
If the above is not admissible, what can be done to make them admissible?