The Queensland police service has missed the deadline to file its defence in a breach of privacy case brought by a domestic violence victim whose details were leaked by a police officer.
Julie* was forced to go into hiding after a senior constable, Neil Punchard, accessed her address from the police QPrime database and sent it to her violent former husband, who has been convicted of domestic violence and faces another charge of breaching a domestic violence order.
Punchard then sent text messages to Julie’s former husband joking about the matter.
“Just tell her you know where she lives and leave it at that. Lol. She will flip,” Punchard wrote in one message that was later sent to the Crime and Corruption Commission.
Julie has subsequently launched a breach of privacy claim and is seeking compensation for having to relocate her family after her details were leaked. The maximum payout she can receive is $100,000 and she estimates the ordeal has cost her “much more than that”.
The Queensland Government Insurance Fund has instructed the government legal service, Crown Law Queensland, to fight the case on behalf of the police service.
Julie is self-represented in the Queensland civil and administrative tribunal. The police service was required by the tribunal to file “the statements of evidence on which it seeks to rely” by Monday at 4pm.
Guardian Australia sought a response from police about why the defence had not been filed, ahead of a hearing set down for 9 November. Police have not responded.
Punchard was initially listed as a co-defendant but was removed as a party to the case after arguing a privacy complaint could only be made against an agency, not an individual.
The police defence to Julie’s claim is broadly that the state should not be held responsible for the actions of rogue individuals.
“The Queensland police service does not dispute that the senior constable engaged in the conduct in question,” QCAT member Paul Kanowski said in an interim judgment. “It does, however, dispute that it breached its obligations under the privacy principles in the information privacy act. In other words, it does not accept that it is responsible for the privacy violation.”
The Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, has resisted calls for her government to back away from the legal case and to compensate Julie. She said last month it would be “inappropriate” for her to intervene.
The matter is ongoing.
* Julie is a pseudonym. She has also been referred to as Elizabeth in previous reporting about her case.
.png?w=600)
