03 9070 9810

Is It Illegal to Record Someone Without Consent in Australia?

State criminal laws vary. A new Commonwealth civil tort now fills the gaps. Understand your rights and options.

★★★★★

“I had Jackson look after my personal situation that required a firm fair hand to resolve.”
— Craig N., Google review

★★★★★

“Cale and Blaine at SLK Lawyers expertly guided a complex commercial matter from start to finish.”
— L. L., Google review

★★★★★

“Jackson at SKL Lawyers settled a defamation case for us promptly and was very informative along the way.”
— Kristy L., Google review

★★★★★

“SLK were a pleasure to deal with and acted with a high degree of professionalism and urgency.”
— Brett B., Google review

Book a Confidential Assessment

Max file size: 20MB

Recording Laws in Australia: Criminal Offences and Civil Remedies

The question "can I sue for being recorded without consent" has a different answer in 2025 than it did a year ago. Until 10 June 2025, Australian law dealt with unauthorised recording primarily through state and territory criminal legislation. Those laws create offences. They do not, by themselves, give you a right to sue for compensation.

The distinction matters. A person who records you without permission may be committing a criminal offence under state surveillance legislation in Victoria, NSW, or Queensland. But a criminal offence does not automatically entitle you to damages. You could report the matter to police, but you could not bring a civil claim for the recording itself.

That has now changed. The statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which commenced on 10 June 2025, provides a civil cause of action for individuals who have been subjected to serious, intentional or reckless invasions of their privacy. Unauthorised recording, surveillance, and monitoring fall squarely within the tort's first pathway: intrusion upon seclusion.

If you need a privacy lawyer in Australia, SLK Lawyers can assess your situation and advise on the most effective course of action.

The clock is ticking. You may have as little as 12 months to act.

Limitation periods under the statutory tort are strict. If you are being recorded or surveilled without consent, a confidential initial assessment can clarify your position.

Why the Statutory Tort Matters for Recording Disputes

The Commonwealth tort addresses longstanding gaps in Australian law that left individuals without a practical civil remedy.

No Proof of Damage Required

The tort is actionable per se. You do not need to demonstrate financial loss. The invasion itself is the wrong.

Covers Outdoor Surveillance

Unlike Victorian law, the tort is not limited to activities inside a building. Outdoor camera surveillance of private spaces is within scope.

Applies Across All States

As Commonwealth legislation, the tort applies uniformly across Australia. State-level gaps in Victoria, NSW, and Queensland are no longer barriers.

Civil Remedy, Not Just Criminal

You do not need to rely on police to pursue charges. The tort gives you a direct right of action in court for damages and injunctive relief.

Covers Digital Monitoring

Email reading, account access, spyware, GPS tracking, and device monitoring are all forms of intrusion upon seclusion under the tort.

Urgent Relief Is Available

Where recording or surveillance is ongoing, the court may grant an urgent injunction to restrain the conduct before trial.

Recording Laws by State

Each state has different rules on consent, different definitions of what is covered, and different gaps. The Commonwealth tort now applies across all of them.

Victoria recording laws and privacy legislation

Victoria: One-Party Consent, but Cameras Are Largely Unregulated

<p>Under the <strong>Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic)</strong>, recording a private conversation with a listening device is a criminal offence unless at least one party to the conversation consents. This is often called <strong>one-party consent</strong>: if you are part of the conversation, you may record it without telling the other person.</p><p>Optical surveillance (cameras) is more limited. The offence only applies to surveillance of a "private activity" carried on <strong>inside a building</strong>. Activities carried on outside a building, including in your backyard, on your balcony, or in your driveway, are excluded. A neighbour who points a CCTV camera at your outdoor living area is not committing a criminal offence under Victorian law.</p><p>Tracking devices require consent of the person being tracked, but data surveillance is only regulated for law enforcement purposes.</p><p>The result: Victoria's laws leave significant gaps for outdoor camera surveillance, GPS tracking by private individuals, and covert monitoring of digital communications. The <strong>Commonwealth statutory tort</strong> now provides a civil remedy for all of these, where the conduct is serious, intentional or reckless, and the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy.</p>

NSW recording laws and surveillance device legislation

NSW: All-Party Consent with Stricter Penalties

<p>New South Wales takes a stricter approach. Under the <strong>Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)</strong>, recording a private conversation requires the consent of <strong>all parties</strong> to the conversation. Recording a conversation you are part of, without telling the other person, is a criminal offence carrying penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment. There is a limited exception where a party records a conversation in which they have a lawful interest.</p><p>Optical surveillance is an offence, but only where it involves <strong>trespass</strong> on or interference with another person's property. External surveillance conducted from your own property, looking at a neighbour's property, is generally not captured.</p><p>Tracking devices require consent (unless used for a "lawful purpose"), and penalties are heavier than in Victoria.</p><p>The practical gap in NSW is similar to Victoria: surveillance conducted from one's own property, without physical intrusion, is difficult to prosecute under state law. The <strong>all-party consent rule</strong> for audio is strict, but visual surveillance from a distance remains largely unaddressed. The Commonwealth tort fills this gap by providing a civil claim for intrusion upon seclusion regardless of whether the surveillance involved a trespass.</p>

Queensland recording laws and invasion of privacy legislation

Queensland: Listening Devices Only, No Camera or Tracking Regulation

<p>Queensland's position is the most significant gap in Australian surveillance law. The <strong>Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld)</strong> regulates <strong>listening devices only</strong>. It operates on a one-party consent model: you may record a conversation you are party to, but you may not use a listening device to record a conversation to which you are not a party.</p><p>Critically, Queensland has <strong>no civilian legislation</strong> covering optical surveillance (cameras), tracking devices, or data surveillance. A person in Queensland who installs a hidden camera in a private space, tracks another person's vehicle with a GPS device, or monitors another person's digital communications is not committing an offence under state surveillance legislation (although other offences, such as stalking, may apply in some circumstances).</p><p>This is the jurisdiction where the Commonwealth statutory tort has the most immediate practical impact. For Queensland residents who have been subjected to camera surveillance, GPS tracking, or digital monitoring, the <strong>statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy</strong> under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act provides, for the first time, a direct civil remedy.</p>

The Commonwealth Tort: A Civil Remedy for Recording Without Consent

State surveillance legislation creates criminal offences. It does not create a right for the person who was recorded to bring a civil claim for damages. You cannot "sue under the Surveillance Devices Act." You can report an offence to police, but whether charges are laid is a matter for the prosecuting authority, not for you.

The statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, enacted under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), changes this. Since 10 June 2025, any individual (natural person) in Australia can bring a civil claim against any other person, corporation, or government body for a serious invasion of their privacy. The tort covers two pathways. The one most relevant to recording disputes is intrusion upon seclusion: an invasion of privacy by intruding upon the plaintiff's seclusion or private affairs.

What Must Be Proved

The plaintiff must establish that the invasion was intentional or reckless. Negligence is not enough. An accidental recording, or a security camera that inadvertently captures a neighbour's property, is unlikely to meet this threshold. The conduct must also be serious, assessed by reference to factors including the nature of the private information or activity, the means used, the degree of intrusion, and whether the defendant knew or ought to have known the conduct was likely to offend or distress. Importantly, no proof of damage is required. The tort is actionable per se.

What the Tort Covers That State Law Does Not

The practical significance of the Commonwealth tort is most visible in the gaps left by state legislation. Outdoor CCTV surveillance of a neighbour's property in Victoria is not a criminal offence, but it may give rise to a civil claim under the tort. External surveillance from one property to another in NSW is generally not captured by the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, but it is potentially actionable. Camera and GPS surveillance in Queensland, entirely unregulated at the state level, is now within reach of a civil remedy.

The tort also covers digital surveillance and monitoring: reading another person's emails or messages, accessing their accounts, installing spyware or tracking software on their devices, and similar conduct. These forms of intrusion are common in relationship breakdowns and family disputes, and many fall outside state surveillance legislation entirely.

Remedies Available

A successful plaintiff may obtain damages (including non-economic loss capped at approximately $478,550, plus exemplary damages in exceptional cases), an injunction requiring the defendant to stop the conduct, and an order for the destruction or return of material. Where a recording is ongoing or publication of recorded material is threatened, urgent injunctive relief may be available, including on an after-hours basis.

For Defendants

Not every recording gives rise to liability. The tort contains a seriousness threshold, a public interest balancing test, and a range of statutory defences including consent, lawful authority, and necessity. Persons who record for legitimate security purposes, or who conduct proportionate monitoring with appropriate notice, may have strong grounds for defence. A breach of state surveillance law does not automatically establish the Commonwealth tort, and the absence of a state-level offence does not prevent a tort claim. The two regimes operate independently.

For claims that also involve damage to reputation (for example, where a recording is published to third parties), the intersection with defamation law may be relevant. The statutory tort borrows several defences from defamation law, including absolute privilege and fair report. Where publication of private material also gives rise to a defamation claim, we can advise on both causes of action. See defamationlawyer.au for more information on defamation claims.

Frequently Asked Questions: Recording Without Consent

It depends on the state and the type of recording. In Victoria, one-party consent applies to audio recordings: you may record a conversation you are part of. In NSW, all-party consent applies: recording a private conversation without everyone's knowledge is a criminal offence. In Queensland, only listening devices are regulated; there is no state law covering cameras or tracking devices. In all states, the new Commonwealth statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy may provide a civil remedy where the recording was intentional or reckless and involved a serious intrusion upon seclusion, regardless of whether a state offence was committed.

Since 10 June 2025, yes, if the recording constitutes a serious invasion of your privacy that was intentional or reckless. The statutory tort under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) provides a civil cause of action. You do not need to prove financial loss. Remedies include damages (capped at approximately $478,550 for non-economic loss), injunctions, and orders for destruction of material. You cannot sue directly under state surveillance legislation, which creates criminal offences rather than civil rights of action.

One-party consent (Victoria, Queensland) means that a person who is party to a conversation may record it without telling the other participants. All-party consent (NSW) means that every person in the conversation must consent to the recording. These rules apply to audio recordings (listening devices). They do not generally apply to video-only surveillance, which is regulated differently in each state, and in Queensland, not regulated at all in the civilian context.

In Victoria, optical surveillance offences under the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 only apply to private activities carried on inside a building. Outdoor surveillance is excluded. In NSW, the optical surveillance offence requires a trespass or interference with property. In Queensland, there is no legislation covering camera surveillance at all. The Commonwealth statutory tort may now provide a civil remedy if the surveillance is directed at areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the conduct is serious, intentional or reckless. See our page on neighbour camera disputes for more detail.

No. The statutory tort operates alongside state legislation, not in place of it. State laws create criminal offences enforced by police and prosecuting authorities. The Commonwealth tort creates a civil cause of action enforced by the individual in court. A breach of state law may support a tort claim by demonstrating the nature of the conduct, but the tort has its own elements (seriousness, intention or recklessness, reasonable expectation of privacy) that must be independently established. Conversely, conduct that is not an offence under state law may still be actionable under the tort.

The OAIC complaint pathway under the Australian Privacy Principles (Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act) only applies to APP entities: typically larger organisations with annual turnover above $3 million, health service providers, and Commonwealth government agencies. It does not cover complaints against individuals, small businesses, or most employers. If the person who recorded you is an individual or a small business, the OAIC cannot assist. The statutory tort (Schedule 2) allows claims against any person or entity regardless of APP entity status. See our page comparing OAIC complaints with tort claims.

The limitation period is 1 year from when you became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) of the invasion, or 3 years from when the invasion occurred, whichever expires first. The court may extend these periods up to a maximum of 6 years from the date of the invasion. These are strict deadlines. If you believe you have been recorded without consent, you should seek advice promptly. See our page on time limits.

The statutory tort provides several defences, including consent (express or implied), lawful authority, necessity, and defence of persons or property. If the recording was conducted for a legitimate purpose (such as home security) and was proportionate and disclosed, you may have strong grounds to resist a claim. The seriousness threshold also operates as a filter: minor or incidental recordings may not meet the threshold for liability. The tort also provides for pre-trial determination of certain exemptions, which can resolve the matter without a full trial. SLK Lawyers acts for defendants as well as plaintiffs.

Yes. The statutory tort applies to the handling of employee records, unlike the Australian Privacy Principles, which contain an employee records exemption. However, workplace monitoring that is disclosed to employees, proportionate to a legitimate business purpose, and conducted within the scope of company policy may be defended on grounds of implied consent or on the basis that the employee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances. See our pages on employer email monitoring and employer invasion of privacy.

No. Unlike defamation, truth is not a defence. The tort protects against the intrusion itself, not against the accuracy of what was captured. A recording may be entirely accurate and still constitute an actionable invasion of privacy if the other elements of the tort are met.

Recorded Without Consent? Facing a Recording Claim?

A confidential initial assessment (fixed fee, $770) will clarify whether you have a claim, or a defence, under the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy. SLK Lawyers acts for plaintiffs and defendants across Australia.

Disclaimer: The content of this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute specific legal advice. Professional legal advice should be sought in relation to your individual circumstances.

Call