You have a folder of screenshots on your phone. Threatening messages, admissions, something you think proves your side. Or maybe it is the opposite: you sent something in the heat of the moment, and now you are dreading it being read out in front of a court.
Either way, the question is the same. Do these messages actually count?
The short answer is yes. Text messages are used as evidence all the time in AVO and family law matters. But a court only accepts them if they clear three tests: they are relevant, they are genuine, and the way they were obtained holds up. This page walks through those three tests, and how they play out in an AVO, a parenting matter, and a property matter.
What a court actually needs before your texts count
Before a court will rely on a message, it has to clear a few hurdles. Get these right and your screenshots do real work. Get them wrong, and this is exactly how text messages get thrown out of court.
Relevance comes first. A message has to bear on something the court is actually deciding (Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 55 and s 56). If it does not help prove or disprove a fact in the case, it does not get in, no matter how much it upset you at the time.
Then authenticity. The court needs to be satisfied the message is genuine and really came from the person you say sent it. This is where a single screenshot gets shaky. A screenshot can be edited, cropped, or stripped of its context, so the other side can challenge it. The stronger your proof that the message is real and complete, the harder it is to knock out.
There is also a separate rule worth knowing about: hearsay. It is not one of the three tests above, but it can still decide whether a message does the job you want it to. You will hear the word thrown around, so here is what it means in plain terms. If you want to use a message to prove that what it says is true, that can run into the hearsay rule (Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 59), which carries a list of exceptions. The question the rule asks is about the truth of what the message says, not simply whether the message is authentic. That distinction is the one a lot of the advice online gets wrong.
Can text messages get an AVO taken out against someone?
If you are reading this in the middle of an AVO situation, start here, because a lot of people get this badly wrong. An AVO does not need any physical violence, or any physical contact at all. Messages on their own can be enough.
An AVO can be granted for threats, intimidation, stalking, even something like sending text messages. So if you’re blowing up someone’s phone with messages and they’re feeling scared or harassed, that alone could be enough.
I have seen exactly that happen.
I had a client once who was shocked. He said he never touched the person, and they were right, they didn’t, but the court still granted the AVO based entirely on the threatening text messages.
So the messages cut both ways. If you are on the receiving end of threatening or harassing messages, they can be the evidence that supports an order to protect you. If you are the one sending them, they can be the entire case against you. When you are not sure where you stand, it is worth speaking to our AVO lawyers before your court date.
Text messages in family law: parenting versus property
Here is the part people don’t really appreciate: whether your texts get in depends partly on what kind of case you are in.
In parenting cases, the court can set aside the strict rules of evidence, because its job is to work out what is in the best interests of the child (Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 69ZT). Informal material like text messages tends to come in more readily than it would elsewhere. If your dispute is about the children, this is the parenting matters side of family law, and your messages are more likely to be looked at.
It works differently on the money side. In a property settlement, or where someone is accused of breaching existing orders, the normal Evidence Act rules apply in the usual way. Your texts still have to clear relevance, authenticity and the hearsay rule like any other piece of evidence.
What if you got the messages secretly or without consent?
This is where people assume the worst: that a message obtained without the other person knowing is useless. That is not how it works.
Material that was improperly or unlawfully obtained is not automatically shut out. The court runs a balancing exercise (Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 138). It weighs the value of the evidence against the way it was obtained, then decides whether letting it in is justified.
Covert recordings are the clearest example. In Coulter & Coulter (No 2) [2019] FCCA 1290, a mother’s video of a changeover was admitted, but her secret audio recording of the children with their father was excluded under that balancing test. Same person, same case, a different result, turning on how the material was gathered.
Recording someone secretly is its own topic with its own risks, so it is worth understanding whether secret recordings can be used in court before you rely on anything like that. For text messages you already have, the same principle holds: how you got them can matter as much as what they say.
How to present text messages so a court will accept them
Having the messages is only half of it. How you put them forward matters just as much.
- Keep the full conversation, not a single line. A cherry-picked screenshot invites the argument that you have taken it out of context. Export or screenshot the whole thread so the meaning is clear.
- Preserve the original. Keep the messages on the device and hold onto the details that prove they are real: the date, the time, and who sent them. That information is what backs up authenticity.
- Put them in through your affidavit. Your affidavit is your written, sworn account, and your messages belong inside it. Evidence goes to the court that way, not handed up loose on the day.
What about emails, social media and app messages?
Text messages are not special here. Emails, Facebook and Instagram messages, WhatsApp and Messenger chats are all treated the same way. Each one has to clear the same three tests: is it relevant, is it genuine, and does the way it was obtained hold up. The platform changes, the questions do not.
If you are holding a folder of screenshots and you are not sure whether they help you or hurt you, that is worth a proper conversation before you make a move. Me and my team can look at what you have, tell you where you stand, and walk you through the next step. Book a free discovery call on 1300 614 732, and we will give you clear advice with no pressure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can text messages be used as evidence in court in Australia?
Yes. Text messages are used as evidence regularly in both AVO and family law matters. A court will accept them if they are relevant to what it has to decide, genuine, and obtained in a way that holds up when weighed against their value. Screenshots can work, but the original is stronger.
Are screenshots of text messages enough, or do I need the original?
Screenshots can be used, but they are easier to challenge because they can be edited or cropped. The safest approach is to keep the original messages on the device, preserve the date, time and sender details, and export the full conversation rather than a single line.
Can text messages get an AVO taken out against someone?
Yes. An AVO can be granted on threatening, intimidating or harassing messages alone, with no physical contact at all. If messages are making someone feel genuinely scared or harassed, that can be enough for a court to make an order.
Are text messages considered hearsay?
They can be. If you are using a message to prove that what it says is true, the hearsay rule may apply, though it has a number of exceptions. If the message matters simply because it was sent, rather than for the truth of its contents, hearsay is usually not the issue.
Can messages I obtained without the other person's consent still be used?
Sometimes. Improperly or unlawfully obtained messages are not automatically excluded. The court weighs the value of the evidence against the way it was obtained and decides whether to allow it. How you got the material can affect whether it gets in.
