RM v Queensland Police Service - [2017] QCAT 71

CITATION:

RM v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCAT 71

PARTIES:	RM (Applicant)
v
Queensland Police Service (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCL036-15

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

26 February 2016 and 13 May 2016
Written submissions filed 24 May 2016,
14 June 2016 and 20 June 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Deane

DELIVERED ON:

7 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The complaint that Queensland Police Service breached Privacy Principles 4, 9 and 11 is not substantiated and is dismissed.

2. The complaint that Queensland Police Service breached Privacy Principle 10 is substantiated

3. The act of sending an email on 13 September 2012 at 4.52pm was an interference with RM’s privacy and Queensland Police Service must not repeat the act.

4. Queensland Police Service must provide to RM a written apology for the interference with RM’s privacy by 4:00pm on 10 April 2017.

5. Queensland Police Service must reimburse RM the sum of $4,400 for expenses reasonably incurred by 4:00pm on 10 April 2017.

6. Queensland Police Service must pay RM compensation in the sum of $5,000 by 4:00pm on 10 April 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – PRIVACY – Information Privacy – whether information released was personal information – whether information was used for the purpose for which it was obtained – whether an employee sending the offending email constitutes use or disclosure – whether QPS took all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised use or disclosure – whether consequential orders ought be made including an apology, re-imbursement of expenses incurred and payment of compensation

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 6,
s 12, s 23, s 24, s 27, s 164, s 176, s 178
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 133
Acts Interpretations Act 1954 (Qld), Schedule
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28

JL v Queensland Police Service [2014] QCAT 623
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
AXP v Queensland Police Service [2013] QCAT 680
BAW v Department of Justice and Attorney–General, Office of Fair Trading [2015] QCAT 285
Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 1380
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Cooke [2000] 1 Qd R 7

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

RESPONDENT:

Queensland Police Service

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:

RM in person

RESPONDENT:

Queensland Police Service represented by Ms SD Anderson of Counsel instructed by Public Safety Business Agency

REASONS FOR DECISION

RM is a former member of the Queensland Police Service (QPS). RM claims that while employed by the QPS another member of the QPS, CF, sent an email containing RM’s personal information, including information about RM’s health and in doing so the QPS breached information privacy principles (IPP) 4, 9, 10 and 11 as provided for in the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (the Act). RM seeks a variety of orders, including a written apology, compensation in the amount of $100,000 and reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred under section 178 of the Act.
On the first day of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read RM v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] QCAT 71
Decision Date: 7 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was a complaint by RM against the Queensland Police Service regarding alleged breaches of privacy. The dispute centred on whether certain information released by QPS constituted personal information and whether the information was used for the purpose for which it was obtained. The Court was also required to determine whether the act of sending an email by an employee constituted use or disclosure of personal information, and whether QPS took all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised use or disclosure. Furthermore, the Court considered whether any consequential orders, including an apology, reimbursement of expenses incurred, and payment of compensation, ought to be made.

The legal issues the Court needed to address included the interpretation of Privacy Principles 4, 9, 10 and 11 under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). The Court had to determine whether the information in question was personal information and whether it was used for the purpose for which it was obtained. Additionally, the Court needed to decide whether the act of sending an email by an employee constituted use or disclosure of personal information, and whether QPS took all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised use or disclosure. The Court also considered whether any consequential orders, including an apology, reimbursement of expenses incurred, and payment of compensation, ought to be made.

The Court found that the complaint regarding breaches of Privacy Principles 4, 9 and 11 was not substantiated and dismissed the complaint. However, the Court substantiated the complaint regarding a breach of Privacy Principle 10, holding that the act of sending an email on 13 September 2012 at 4.52pm was an interference with RM's privacy. The Court held that QPS must not repeat the act and must provide RM with a written apology, reimbursement of expenses incurred, and compensation. The Court ordered QPS to provide a written apology and reimburse RM the sum of $4,400 for expenses reasonably incurred by 4:00pm on 10 April 2017. Additionally, QPS was ordered to pay RM compensation in the sum of $5,000 by the same date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The complaint that Queensland Police Service breached Privacy Principles 4, 9 and 11 is not substantiated and is dismissed.

2. The complaint that Queensland Police Service breached Privacy Principle 10 is substantiated

3. The act of sending an email on 13 September 2012 at 4.52pm was an interference with RM’s privacy and Queensland Police Service must not repeat the act.

4. Queensland Police Service must provide to RM a written apology for the interference with RM’s privacy by 4:00pm on 10 April 2017.

5. Queensland Police Service must reimburse RM the sum of $4,400 for expenses reasonably incurred by 4:00pm on 10 April 2017.

6. Queensland Police Service must pay RM compensation in the sum of $5,000 by 4:00pm on 10 April 2017.

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.