R v Ritson; R v Stacey

[2010] NSWDC 160

CITATION:	R v Ritson; R v Stacey [2010] NSWDC 160 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	10/5/2010, 11/5/2010, 15/7/2010, 16/7/2010, 19/7/2010, 21/7/2010, 28/7/2010, 30/7/2010
JUDGMENT DATE:	30 July 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Blackmore SC DCJ
DECISION:	In each case no prima facie case found. Appeal upheld. Conviction quashed. Orders of magistrate revoked.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Conviction Appeal - Public official unlawfully disclose information - Meaning of "contained in a publicly available publication" - Meaning of "disclose" - Meaning of "personal information"
LEGISLATION CITED:	Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 Local Court Rules 2009 Local Courts (Criminal and Applications Procedure) Rule 2003 (repealed) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
CASES CITED:	ASIC v Rich [2001] 51 NSWLR 643 Foster v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1951) 82 CLR 606 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Ryde Local Court (2005) 62 NSWLR 512 NW v NSW Fire Brigades [2005] NSW ADT 73 PC v University of New South Wales (2007) NSW ADT 86 R v Davis (1995) 57 FCR 512 R v Elomar & Ors [No.3] [2008] NSWSC 1442 Seven Network v News Limited (2005) FCA 1934 University of New South Wales v PC (GD) [2008] NSW ADTAP 26 WL v Randwick City Council (GD) [2007] NSW ADTAP 58
PARTIES:	The Crown Brendan Paul Ritson Tyrone David Stacey
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 2009/5372; DC 2009/7497
COUNSEL:	Ms F Sullivan Mr R Sweet Mr J Davidson
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Mitchell Lawyers Herring & Associates - Lawyers

1. The appellants are charged with an offence under section 62 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. The heading on the section reads “Corrupt disclosure and use of personal information by public sector officials”. On its face that description appears a somewhat misleading description of the offence with which the appellants are charged. The heading in the section can be used to aid in the section’s interpretation if such is necessary to determine the true meaning of the words used: Interpretation Act 1987 – section 34. But in this case there appears to be no confusion as to the meaning or the application of the section such as to necessitate reference to the heading to assist in its interpretation. Perhaps, if there is a discretion in the prosecuting authority as to whom to prosecute, reference to the heading might enliven and inform that discretion, but once the charge is laid the elements of the offence are the matters that must be proved.

2. In this case the offence for which the appellants stand charged is an offence under section 62(1) of the Act. The elements of the offence are that the appellants:

1. Intentionally disclosed information to which they had access in the exercise of their official functions.
2. The information was personal information.
3. Such disclosure was made otherwise than in connection with the lawful exercise of their official functions.

3. The maximum…