The state's Auditor-General will be asked to investigate how courtrooms holding the potential jury pool for the Gerard Baden-Clay murder trial and the media covering the case, were recorded.
In documents obtained under Right to Information laws, the Department of Justice and Attorney General raised concerns in June last year, over "out of session" recordings of court rooms, which were referred to as "white noise".
The courts included in the email raising the concerns included the Banco court, where the potential juror pool was held, the court where the jury was empanelled and the public overflow courtroom, which was set aside for the public and members of the media to view the "high profile matter".
The date of the email matches when the Baden-Clay case began in the Supreme Court. The email details there was no requirement to record the additional court rooms.
Concerns over the recording of out of session proceedings had been raised by DJAG in the weeks before the Baden-Clay case began, with the emails showing Auscript introduced a change of process to leave recordings running after the court had been adjourned.
It was believed this was done as a protection against "rapid resumption of court proceedings after an adjournment" and the belief "frequently starting and stopping recordings may be considered labour intensive" for court staff.
"I understand there are reasons for this change in process, however while this may address some issues it has created additional risks and issues," the justice department staff wrote.
"For each recording Auscript have now captured significant out of session recordings of that courtroom, potentially a whole day of recording if the court session adjourned quickly.
"What out of session conversations have been recorded is a concern, and from a technical perspective, the storage implications are also a concern."
Two weeks later, the department made mention of the Baden-Clay court recordings, as an "example of the out-of-session 'white noise' recordings which will be stored by Auscript and potentially returned to us at the end of the contract".
The first email on the subject mentions a meeting departmental staff held with Auscript about "white noise", however when contacted by Fairfax Media, Auscript General Manager Kate Gaske said there had been "no issue raised" with the company "by any party".
"Under our contract with the Queensland Department of Justice, Auscript is required to record all courts, we have installed state of the art recording technology that ensures that all courts are recorded," she said in a statement.
"As a result, we are able to ensure that all Queensland court hearings are recorded and backed up.
"As with all courts across Australia, this does result in out-of-session' material being recorded, however these 'out-of-session' recordings are not made available, this process is in accordance with relevant legislation.
"This is the same practice that has been happening in the Queensland courts since digitalisation in around 2006.
"The contract also stipulates how this material is to be handled and securely stored and Auscript rigorously follows these protocols.
"We are bound by strict confidentiality in accordance with our contract with the Department and we are not at liberty to discuss the operational details of individual cases"
In one of its first out-sourcing moves the LNP abolished the State Reporting Bureau, an in-house service that provided the written records of proceedings in the Supreme, District and Magistrate courts and replaced it with Auscript, a move it estimated would save $6 million a year.
The in-house service, which saw court reporters sit in courtrooms and type as proceedings moved forward, was found to cost $12 million a year. The cost of the outsourced service for the 2013-14 year was put down as $9.6 million, a saving of $2.4 million.
The move was one of the first issues of contention between the legal community and the former LNP Government, with complaints about the quality and timing of the transcripts common.
The SRB staff would stop recording the moment an adjournment was called by the presiding judge or magistrate - lawyers often discuss matters with their clients or fellow counsel following the adjournment of court proceedings, which cannot be reported on by the media.
Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Yvette D'Ath said she intended to write to the Auditor General outlining the issues and concerns that have been raised by the material revealed by Fairfax Media.
"Both prior to the election and since becoming the Attorney General ,issues have been raised with me about delays in transcripts, increased costs, and error rates in relation to transcripts." she said on Wednesday.
"Because of these concerns that have been raised with me, I have made the decision to write to the Auditor General and raise these concerns.
"It would then be up to the Auditor General as to what he does with these concerns and what actions he might take.
"But I believe that is the appropriate course. There are genuine issues that have been raised for the last year by many stakeholders in relation to access to transcripts and. I believe the body best equipped to deal with these concerns is the Auditor-General."
In a statement released late Wednesday afternoon, Auscript said it would "thoroughly welcome any investigation by the Auditor-General".
The Queensland Law Society did not return a request for comment.
