“The father’s recordings 19. At a core group meeting with the social workers in late January 2016, the father disclosed that he had been making covert recordings since the end of 2014. In a statement dated 21 February, he produced a number of transcripts dating back to November 2014. 20. At the outset of the hearing, I was asked to rule on whether the father’s recordings should be admitted in evidence. 21. The first task was to establish the facts, and I heard from the father in evidence on this point specifically. Having done so, it emerges that the facts are these: (1) The father produces transcripts of 16 conversations running to over a hundred pages (2) All but one of these are conversations involving Tara (3) The exception was a local authority pre-proceedings meeting (see below) (4) A significant number of recordings have not been transcribed or produced (5) The first recording was made in November 2014, the last in March 2016 (6) The proceedings had been ongoing for well over a year before the existence of the recordings was revealed (7) At least four devices were used (8) At least two of these were small recording devices (bluntly, bugs – the one I was shown was no larger than 3 x 1.5 cm and can be bought on the internet for a few pounds) (9) The other devices were iPhones or iPads belonging to the father and his partner (10) The bugs were bought by the partner (11) She sewed them into to a false bottom to the breast pocket of Tara’s school blazer (12) On some occasions a second bug was sewn into Tara’s school raincoat and used at the same time to maximise the chance of picking up conversations (13) On a day when a meeting was happening, the partner sewed the bug(s) into Tara’s clothing just before she left for school – any earlier and the battery would have run out by the time a meeting took place at the end of the school day (14) The bug would therefore be running all day, recording everything that Tara did (15) Tara was therefore recorded at school, when with her teachers and friends, and at the contact centre when she went to meet her mother or speak to her on FaceTime (16) Recordings were also made at home, when the social workers and Guardian visited (17) At the end of the day, the bug(s) would be removed from the clothing so the contents could be downloaded (18) The partner would make transcripts of what she and the father regarded as relevant conversations (19) Other conversations were recorded by the father using his iPhone as a recording device (20) He would leave it running in the breast pocket of his shirt or hold it, apparently innocently, in his hand (21) At other times, when professionals were visiting the home, the father or his partner would leave an iPad or iPhone running in the top of the partner’s handbag in the room where the conversation was likely to occur (22) In February 2016, the father attended a pre-proceedings meeting with the social workers. They challenged him about his recently revealed use of recordings and he turned his phone off. He did not tell them that he had a second device running, with which he continued to record the meeting. (23) Importantly, the father and his partner state that Tara has never been aware that she has been bugged 22. The father said that he had done all this to protect his daughter, but had not considered the consequences. Initially, he had not intended to disclose the fact that he had been making the recordings. His motivation was to find out about abuse and to hear Tara saying things to social workers that she might not say to him. He and his partner wanted to know what she was saying to them. They wanted to understand why she was so reluctant to see her mother. As matters developed, he wanted to be able to show that Tara was saying things to professionals that they were not reporting or acting on. Although the partner took most of the practical steps, it was planned together and he was responsible. 23. The father accepted that at an earlier stage he had carried out surveillance on the mother, including by using a private detective and by monitoring the in-car tracker device. He gave “no comment” answers to questions about accessing her private emails or iPad location service, but he admitted to accessing and making a screenshot of her private Facebook page when it was open on Tara’s iPad. He had also taken hundreds of photographs in and of her home during the financial proceedings in order to substantiate his claim that she had a live-in boyfriend. 24. Having heard the father’s evidence, I ruled that the recordings should be admitted and deferred explanation until now, so that the possible relevance of these actions to Tara’s welfare could be considered in the wider context. 25. The mother did not oppose the admission of the recordings. Counsel on behalf of Tara drew attention to the court’s powers under FPR 22.1 to control the evidence it receives. This includes the power to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible. She urged that as a matter of public policy conduct of this kind should be discouraged and that the resulting evidence should only be admitted in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, the material that the father wished to file was selective. If the court did not exclude the evidence obtained in this way, it would send the wrong message to other parents. At the same time, she contended that the fact that the recordings were made is in itself relevant and, indeed, important when considering Tara’s welfare. She submitted that the recordings were not unlawful and do not constitute a breach of theData Protection Act 1998 because they fall within the ‘domestic purposes’ exemption provided by s.36: 36 Domestic purposes. Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III. 26. I have not heard further argument about this, and it is unnecessary to determine whether the father’s actions were illegal. That said, I believe that there may be good arguments for saying that the covert recording of individuals, and particularly children, for the purpose of evidence-gathering in family proceedings would not benefit from the domestic purposes exemption. Uneducated, I would assume that the exemption is intended to protect normal domestic use, which this is not. 27. In this case, I am in no doubt that the recordings were rightly admitted. The manner in which they were made is directly relevant to an assessment of the parenting offered by the father and his partner. They are so extensive that it would be unreal to exclude them, particularly after I had heard evidence from the father about their creation. It would be theoretically possible for the court to receive evidence of the making of the recordings but not their contents, but this would risk unbalancing the evidence if the contents were in fact of any value. 28. This case is a striking example of the acute difficulties that can be caused by adults recording children for the purposes of litigation. From the time the recording programme was revealed, everyone involved in these proceedings, except the father and his partner, immediately realised that it was wrong. The mother, rightly in my view, described it as “unbelievable”