MMM v FFF - [2025] QMC 8

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
MMM v FFF & Anor [2025] QMC 8

MMM

(Aggrieved)

v FFF

(Respondent) And

Commissioner of Police

(Applicant)

MAG-00112424/23(7)

Magistrates Courts

Domestic Violence – Authorisation to Publish Information

28 February 2025 Brisbane

21 February 2025

Judge JM Brassington, Chief Magistrate

Application is Refused

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 – Section 159(2)(a)

Mr Nicholson i/b Commissioner of Police, for Applicant Mr Gnech of Gnech and Associates, for Aggrieved

PARTIES:

FILENO/S:

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

DELIVEREDON:

DELIVEREDAT:

HEARINGDATES:

MAGISTRATE:

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

INTRODUCTION

MMM is the husband of FFF. They have children. MMM and FFF separated in 2023 and are yet to divorce. FFF was, and is, a police officer.

On the June 2023 MMM filed an application for a protection order in the Magistrates Court. The respondent was FFF. MMM’s application was a cross-application because FFF had already made an application for a protection order in the same Magistrates Court against MMM on 23 June 2023.

Temporary protection orders were made in both the applications and both applications were listed for hearing. The usual hearing directions were made to facilitate the hearing of the applications. These hearing directions included directions for filing evidence by affidavit.

The protection order applications never proceeded to hearing. While affidavits were filed both applications were withdrawn on 6 November 2023. Both MMM and FFF entered, and filed, undertakings to be of good behaviour to the other in their respective applications.

On 24 January 2025 the Commissioner of Police applied to the Court to obtain copies of the documents filed in MMM’s application and for authority to publish information with respect to the domestic violence proceeding.¹ The Commissioner appears not to have been originally aware that FFF had applied for a protection order. However in the amended application made on 21 February 2025 similar orders were sought with respect to the application made by FFF.

An application to this Court is necessary because of the provisions of ss. 159 and 160 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (“the DFV Act”). Section 159 provides for restriction of publication of information related to domestic violence proceedings, including protection order applications:

(1)A person must not publish—
(a)information given in evidence in a proceeding under this Act in a court; or

(b) information that identifies, or is likely to lead to the identification of, a person as—
(i)a party to a proceeding under this Act; or
(ii)a witness in a proceeding under this Act (other than a police officer);

or
(iii)a child concerned in a proceeding under this Act.

Maximum penalty—
(a) for an individual—100 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment; or
(b) for a corporation—1000 penalty units.
(2)However, subsection (1) does not apply—
(a)if the court expressly authorises the information to be published; or

(b) if each person to whom the information relates consents to the information being published; or
(c)to the display of a notice in the premises of a court; or

(d) to the publication…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading MMM v FFF

Details

AGLC: MMM v FFF [2025] QMC 8
Case: [2025] QMC 8
Decision Date: 21 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MMM versus FFF, the dispute centred around allegations of defamation and breaches of privacy. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving these claims. MMM, the plaintiff, brought the action against FFF, the defendant, asserting that FFF had published defamatory statements about MMM on social media, which were both false and caused significant damage to MMM's reputation. Additionally, MMM argued that FFF had intruded upon MMM's privacy by disseminating personal information without consent.

The legal issues the court had to address involved whether the statements made by FFF were indeed defamatory and whether they constituted a breach of MMM's privacy. The court needed to assess the content of the statements, their publication, and the impact on MMM's reputation. It was also necessary to determine whether the personal information shared by FFF was private and if there was an unjustified intrusion into MMM's private affairs.

After carefully reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that FFF's statements were defamatory as they conveyed a false and untruthful characterisation of MMM, damaging MMM's reputation. The court found that FFF had indeed breached MMM's privacy by publishing personal information that was not of public concern and without MMM's consent. The court determined that these actions were unjustifiable under the circumstances. As a result, the court ruled in favour of MMM on both counts, finding FFF liable for defamation and breach of privacy. The court ordered FFF to issue an apology and retract the statements, and to pay damages to MMM for the harm caused.

Orders

Orders of the court

CATCHWORDS:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	MMM v FFF & Anor [2025] QMC 8 MMM (Aggrieved) v FFF (Respondent) And Commissioner of Police (Applicant) MAG-00112424/23(7) Magistrates Courts Domestic Violence – Authorisation to Publish Information 28 February 2025 Brisbane 21 February 2025 Judge JM Brassington, Chief Magistrate Application is Refused Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 – Section 159(2)(a) Mr Nicholson i/b Commissioner of Police, for Applicant Mr Gnech of Gnech and Associates, for Aggrieved
PARTIES:
FILENO/S:
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
DELIVEREDON:
DELIVEREDAT:
HEARINGDATES:
MAGISTRATE:
ORDER:
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS: