Submission - Right to Sue for Serious Invasion of Personal Privacy - Liberty Victoria

Liberty Victoria

ResponsetoCommonwealthIssuesPaperon aStatutoryCauseofActionfor SeriousInvasionof Privacy

Libertybelievesthattherighttoprivacyisafundamentalhumanrightandonewhichdeserves protectioninAustralia.TheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)isa cornerstoneofinternationalcivilliberties.Likemostdevelopednations,Australiaisasignatory. Article17oftheICCPRstates:

17.1. Nooneshallbesubjectedtoarbitraryorunlawfulinterferencewithhisprivacy,family, homeorcorrespondence,nortounlawfulattacksonhishonourandreputation.

17.2. Everyonehastherighttotheprotectionofthelawagainstsuchinterference or attacks.

TodatethatprotectionwithhasbeenlackingwithnorecognizedrighttoprivacyinAustralia.The currentlegislativeframeworkisinadequateandLibertywelcomestheCommonwealth’sproposalto introduceastatutorycauseofactionforseriousinvasionofprivacy.

ThefollowingcommentsaremadeinresponsetotheCommonwealthIssuesPaperona CommonwealthStatutoryCauseofActionforSeriousInvasionofPrivacy(“IssuesPaper”)whichwas releasedinSeptember2011andwhichfollowsaseriesofreportsbyAustralia’slawreform commissionsintoprivacyinAustralia.1 FundamentaltotheIssuesPaperwasthequestionofwhetherAustralianeedsalegislatedcauseofactionandifso,whatformitshouldtake.Liberty’sresponsetotheIssuesPaperhasbeengroupedintothefollowingsections:

‐Currentpositionandtheneedforchange;

‐Elementsandcircumstancesofacauseofaction;

‐Defencesandexclusions;

‐Remedies;

‐ConclusionandRecommendations

Likemostnon‐profitorganizations,Liberty’sresourcesarelimitedandoursubmissionisnecessarily brief.HowevershouldtheMinisterwishtodiscussanyaspectofoursubmissionfurther,wewouldbepleasedtodoso.

1 AustralianLawReformCommission,Report108:ForYourInformation:AustralianPrivacyLawandPractice(2008)(“ALRCReport”);NewSouthWales LawReformCommission,Report120:Invasionof Privacy(2009)(“NSWRC Report”);VictorianLawReformCommissionReport,Report 18:SurveillanceinPublicPlaces:FinalReport (2010)(“VLRCReport”).

CurrentPositionandtheNeedforChange

ExceptionsundertheexistingCommonwealthPrivacyAct1988meanthattheCommonwealthActis limitedinscope.MoreoverStateandTerritoryprivacylegislationistypicallyrestrictedtothepublic sector(andtheircontractors).Asaresult,therearevastareasunprotectedbyanyformofprivacy legislation.Extensionofthecommonlawtocoverprivacyhasalsoprovenproblematic.As recommendedbytheALRC,NSWLRCandVLRC,afederalstatutorycauseofactionforserious invasions ofprivacyisnowrequired.

Question1:Dorecentdevelopmentsintechnologymeanthatadditionalwaysofprotecting individuals’privacyshouldbeconsideredinAustralia?

Developmentsintechnologyoverthelasttenyearshaveradicallychangedhowweinteractwith each other.Moreovertheincreasinguseandrelianceonthesetechnologiesmeanthatthereare significantamounts ofpersonalinformationbeingrecordedaboutoureverydayactivities.For example2:

TheInternetwithcookiesandspywaremeanthatouractivitiesonlineareoftenbeing recorded,whetherweareawareofitornot.Theriseofsocialnetworkingsitesanda general willingnessbyuserstouploadpersonalinformation(i.e.photos,addresses,social activities,etc)provideawealthofpersonalinformation.

MobilephoneswithGPSandapplications that collectpersonalinformationmeanthat not onlyareourmovementstracked,butouractivities(sms,browsing,games,etc)atthetime arealsologged;

Smartcardsusedfortollroads,publictransport,creditcards,buildingaccesscards,etcall collectmovementinformationwhichcanbetiedtoactivitiesatthetime;

CCTVandtheemergenceoffacialrecognitionsoftwaremeansthatourmovementscanbe trackedevenwhenwewalkdownthestreet(regardlessofwhetherwehaveanyother trackingenabledtechnologiesonourperson);

Protectivelegislationintroducedin recentyearsmeanauthorities areregularlyprovided with informationaboutanysuspiciousactivityoractivitythatfallsintocertaincategories (whetherlegalornot)infinancial,medicalorevensocialsituations;

Thesetechnologiesandotherdevelopmentsbringwiththemmanybenefitsanditwouldbefutile to attempt tostoptheirspread.However,thatspreadmustbebalancedbyastrengtheningin thelegal protection ofprivacyotherwiseverylittlewithbeleft.

Question2:IsthereaneedforacauseofactionforseriousinvasionofprivacyinAustralia?

Theexistingpatchworkapproachtoprivacyprotectionin Australiaisinadequateandhasbeenthe subjectofnumerousinquiriesandreportswhichhaverecommendedthatAustraliarecognize (whetherlegislativelyorthroughthecommonlaw)ageneralrighttoprivacy.Theproposalto

2 See alsotheopinionpiecebyMichaelPearceSCinTheAgeon27July,2011 (

introduceastatutorycauseofactionis tobecommendedalthoughtheIssuesPaperdescriptionofitasa‘gapfilling’roleforthemostseriousprivacyinvasionsisofconcern(IssuesPaperat23).AnycauseofactionlimitedtoonlythemostegregiousofprivacyinvasionswouldbesymptomaticofAustralia’sadhocapproachtoprivacyprotection. Acomprehensiveanduniformapproachisrequired;anythinglesswillcontinuetoconfusetheissueandrequirefuturelegislativereformattheexpenseofourprivacy.

Question3:Shouldanycauseofactionforseriousinvasionofprivacybecreatedbystatuteorbe lefttodevelopmentatcommonlaw?

Thereisnoguaranteethatiflefttothecommonlawaprivacytortwouldemergeanytimesoon. ParticularlysosinceanydevelopmentcouldonlybemadebytheHighCourt,requiringawellresourcedanddeterminedlitigant.3 Furthermore,itwouldtakeseveralcasestoreachasettledposition,takingmanyyearsandplayingareactiveroletocontinueddevelopmentsintechnologyanditsuseinsociety.

ForthisreasonandforthosesetoutintheIssuesPaper(atp28‐29),alegislatedcauseofactionfor privacyoffersbetterprospectsforprotectingprivacyinAustraliathanthedevelopmentofaprivacy tort.TheParliamentisfarbetterplacedtodeterminetherighttoprivacythanleavingittowhat wouldbealonganduncertainprocessbythecourts.Thisconclusionispredicatedonawelldrafted statutory causeofaction:sufficientlybroadscopeandnotartificiallylimitedtothegrossestofprivacyinvasions.

ElementsandCircumstances

LibertyagreeswiththeALRC,NSWLRCandVLRCthatanycauseofactionforinvasionofprivacybe predicatedonareasonableexpectationofprivacyinthecircumstances.Moreover,itshouldbeopentoanyonewithsufficientinterestorstandingtobringa claim(toallowthoseindirectlyaffectedtoseekredress).4

Question4:Is‘highlyoffensive’anappropriatestandardforacauseofactionrelatingtoserious invasionofprivacy?

Thestatutorycauseofactionshouldbereservedforseriousinvasionsofprivacy.Howeveratoo strictlywordedtest,suchas‘highlyoffensive’,maypreventplaintiffstakingactionagainstinvasionsofprivacywhichareseriousbutdonotmeetthe‘highlyoffensive’test. TheoriginalALRCDiscussion Paperposedonepotentialtestaswhethertheinvasionwas‘sufficientlyserioustocausesubstantial offence’(althoughthiswasnotultimatelyrecommended).Bearinginmindthatthefirstelementoftheproposedcauseofactionwouldbetherequirementthattherewasareasonableexpectationof privacy, LibertyagreeswiththeNSWLRCReport(at28)thata‘highlyoffensive’testisanundue qualificationofthereasonableexpectationofprivacytest.

3 Whichdepending onthe circumstancesofthecase,mayaffectthe scopeandnatureoftheemergentright.

4 Forinstancewheretheinvasionofoneperson’sprivacyresultsintheinvasionofanother’ssuchas someonelivingatthe sameaddressorcloselyrelated.

AccordinglyLibertyarguesthatthemoreappropriatetestofwhethertherehasbeenaserious invasion ofprivacyiswhethersubstantialoffencehasbeencaused.

Question5:Shouldthebalancingofinterestsinanyproposedcauseofactionbeintegratedinto the causeofaction(ALRCorNSWLRC)orconstituteaseparatedefence(VLRC)?

Therearereasonableargumentsforbothpossibilities.Integratingvariouspublicinterestsintothe causeofactioneffectivelyplacestheburdenontheplaintiffwhilstapublicinterestdefence becomes anissueforthedefendant.

TheproposedcauseofactionisinresponsetorecommendationsbytheALRC,NSWRLCandVLRCandapublicdemandfortherighttosueforseriousinvasionsofprivacy.Accordinglythatrightmustbeaccessibletothepublicandnotsocomplicatedthatitisonlyavailabletowellresourcedlitigants.The ALRCandNSWLRCproposaltointegrateapublicinteresttestinto thecauseofactionrunstherisk ofdoingexactlythat.ThereforeLibertyagreeswiththeVLRCthatthepublicinterestmayberelieduponasadefence.

Question6:Howbestcouldastatutorycauseofactionrecognizethepublicinterestinfreedomofexpression?

Libertyisastrongadvocateoffreedomofexpression,butalsorecognizesthatitmustbeweighed againstothercivillibertiessuchasprivacy.Libertybelievesthatthecorrectbalancecanbestruckby confiningtherighttosuetocasesofseriousinvasionofprivacyandbyprovidingforapublicinterest defence.

Question7:Istheinclusionof‘intentional’or‘reckless’asfaultelementsforanyproposedcause ofactionappropriate,orshoulditcontaindifferentrequirementsastofault?

Libertyisoftheviewthatanycauseofactionbelimitedtoinvasionsofprivacycausedbyintentional orrecklessconduct.Thisisanappropriatelimitationasitwillpreventactionsagainstthosewho

haveaccidentallyorunwittinglyinvadedtheprivacyofothers.

Question8:Shouldanylegislationallowfortheconsiderationofotherrelevantmatters,and,if so,isthelistofmattersproposedbytheNSWLRCnecessaryandsufficient?

Ingeneralterms,Libertysupportstheinclusionofadditionalmattersthecourtmusttakeintoaccount whenconsideringwhetherornottherehasbeenaninvasionofprivacy.Howeversuchlistsshouldnotbeexhaustiveasthe circumstancesofeachcasearelikelytovaryconsiderably.Onsuchabasis,LibertysupportsthelistofmattersproposedbytheNSWLR(NSWLRCReportat35,citedintheIssues Paperat39).

Question9:Shouldanon‐exhaustivelistofactivitieswhichcouldconstituteaninvasionofprivacy beincludedin thelegislationcreatingastatutorycauseofaction,orinother explanatory material?Ifalistweretobeincluded,shouldanychangesbemadeto thelistproposedbytheALRC?

Anon‐exhaustivelistofactivitiesconstitutingaseriousinvasionofprivacymayprovideguidancebut alsorisksunnecessarilylimitingthescopeofthecauseofaction.Theinclusionofsuchalistinthe

ExplanatoryMemorandum(EM)shouldprovidesufficientguidancewhilstnotprescribingwhatmay ormaynotbeconsideredaninvasionofprivacy.

DefencesandExclusions

Aswithallcausesofaction,itisequallyimportantthatwelldrafteddefencesareopentothosewho haveactedinnocently,withinthelawortodefendagainsttrivialandvexatious claims.Moreover, there maybesomecircumstancesinwhichdefendantsareimmunewhenexercisingtheirofficial functions.

Question10: Whatshould beincludedasdefencestoanyproposedcauseofaction?

TheALRCandNSWLRCtooktheviewthatthequestionofconsentshouldformpartofthe causeof action ratherthanprovidingaformaldefence(assuggestedbytheVLRC).Theissueofconsentis relevanttodeterminingwhethertherewasareasonableexpectationofprivacyinthecircumstances.Howeveritmaybeprudenttoincludeaspecificdefenceofconsent.

TheALRCproposeddefencesaretoobroadlydraftedandLibertytakestheviewthattheNSWLRCandVLRCprovideabetterbalancebetweentherightsoftheplaintiffandthoseofthedefendant.In particular, theuseoftermssuchas‘fair’,‘reasonable’and‘proportionate’requirethedefendantto showtheyactedreasonablyinthecircumstances.ThusLibertysupportstheinclusion ofdefencessuch aswheretheactorconductwas:

a) expresslyorimpliedlyconsentedtobytheplaintifforapersonlawfullyauthorizedtodoso ontheirbehalf.

b) requiredorauthorizedbylawandreasonablein thecircumstances;

c) inthepublicinterestandifinvolvingpublication,privilegedorfaircomment;

d) necessarytotheexerciseofalawful rightofdefenceofpersonorproperty;

Inallcases,theactorconductmustbereasonableandproportionateinthecircumstances.

Question11: Shouldparticularorganizationortypesoforganizationsbeexcludedfromtheambitofanyproposedcauseofaction,orshoulddefencesbeusedtorestrictitsapplication?

OneofthegreatestproblemswithAustralia’scurrentprivacyregimeisitsfailuretoprovideconsistentprotection.TherearenumerousexceptionsunderthePrivacyAct1988(Cth)whichgreatlydetractfromits efficacy.Atpresentjournalists,politicalpartiesandemploymentrecordsareallexemptundertheAct.Thishasgivenrisetosignificantproblemsinthepast.Libertytakestheviewthatthereshouldnotbeanyexclusionsfromtheambitoftheproposedcauseofaction.Rather, personsororganizationswhichhaveactedreasonablyandproportionately,whetherinthepublicinterestorsomeotherlawfullyauthorizedcircumstancewillhaveavaliddefence.Libertystronglyadvocatesthatthereshouldnotbeanyexclusionsorexceptionstotheproposedcauseofaction.

Question16: Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionberestrictedtonaturalpersons?

Privacyisafundamentalhumanrightandassuch,shouldberestrictedtonaturalpersons. Organizationsandagencieshavenoneedofprivacyprotection(breachofconfidence,contractlaw, etcprovideadequateremedies)andmaywellusesuchacauseofactionasatool todissuade legitimateinvestigationof,andpubliccommenton,theiractivities.

Question17: Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionberestrictedtolivingpersons?

Itisappropriatethattheproposedcauseofactionberestrictedtolivingpersons,butonlyif thosewhomayhavealsosufferedharmindirectlyarealsoabletobringanaction.LibertyagreeswiththeALRC, NSWLRCandVLRCthatadeceasedperson’sestateshouldnothavethecapacitytobringproceedingsasanyharmcausedtothedeceasedbytheseriousinvasionofprivacycannotsurvivetheirdeath.Howeveritshouldalsoberecognizedthattheseriousinvasionofprivacyofoneindividual mayalso,dependingonthecircumstances,beaseriousinvasionofprivacyofanother.Forinstance,thecollectionandpublicationofgeneticinformationaboutadeceasedpersonmaybeequallyinvasivetotheprivacyofanimmediaterelative.Insuchcircumstances,itshouldbeopentothosewhohavealsohadtheirprivacyseriousinvadedtoalsobringanaction.

Question18: Withinwhatperiod,andfromwhatdate,shouldanactionforseriousinvasionof privacy berequiredtobecommenced?

Inlinewithothercausesofactionsuchaspersonalinjuriesanddefamation,threeyearsfrom becomingawareoftheseriousinvasionofprivacywouldbeanappropriatetimelimitation.Any shorter timeframemayplacetoomuchpressureonapotentialplaintiff,particularlythosewhohave sufferedsignificanttraumaasaresultoftheactorconductconstitutingtheseriousinvasionof privacy.

Question19: Whichforumsshouldhavejurisdictiontohearanddetermineclaimsmadefor serious invasionofprivacy?

Aswithothercausesofaction,itisappropriateforboththefederalcourts(includingFederal Magistrates’Court)andStateandTerritorycourtstohavejurisdiction.Inlinewiththe recommendationthatgeneraldamagesbecappedat$100,000,itisenvisagedthatmostactions wouldbeheardbeforeaMagistrate.Itisalsonotedthatajuryis oftenbestplacedtodetermine questionssuchaswhethertheinvasionwasserious,whethertheactorconductwasreasonableor proportionateorinthepublicinterest.ConsequentlyLibertyrecommendsthatprovisionbemadeforaplaintiffordefendanttoelectforatrialbyjury.

Remedies

Question12: AretheremediesrecommendedbytheALRCnecessaryandsufficientfor,and appropriate to,theproposedcauseofaction?

Libertysupportsaflexibleandbroadsetoflegislativeprovisionsastoremediessuchasthoselisted bytheALRCReport(reproducedintheIssues Paperat45).

Question13: Shouldthelegislationprescribeamaximumawardofdamagesfornon‐economic loss,andifso,whatshouldthatlimitbe?

BoththeNSWLRCandVLRChaverecommendedacaponnon‐economicdamagesbeimposed.Libertygenerallyagreeswiththisrecommendationasameansofensuringthatcompensationiskeptata reasonablelevelinlinewithcommunityexpectations.Acapof$100,000forgeneraldamages(painandsuffering)plusanyspecialdamages(e.g.thecostofchangingaddressoraphonenumberetc.) wouldbeappropriate.

Question14: Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionrequireproofofdamage?Ifso,howshould damagebe definedforthepurposesofthecauseofaction?

Byitsnature,anyseriousinvasionofprivacywillhavecausedpsychologicalharmtotheplaintiffat theveryleast.Howeveritmaydependonhowdamageis definedastowhetheritisrecognized under theproposedcauseofaction.TheALRCwasmindfulthattheharmcausedmaytakemany formsandmaynotbefullyrecognizedbythegenerallaw,henceitsrecommendationthataserious invasion ofprivacybeactionablewithoutproofofdamage.Itisforeseeablethattherecouldbe instanceswhereanactionshouldbebroughtevenwhereno‘serious’or‘substantialdamage’has resultedbuttheactorconductissoegregiousthatitshouldbepunished,evenifonlybywayofa declarationagainstthedefendant.5

Ifabroaddefinitionofdamageisadopted,suchasonewhichincludesnon‐economicharmsuchas mentalanguishanddistress,thenproofofdamagemaybeappropriate.Similarlytotrespass(where thetrespassitselfconstitutesthedamage),proofofsubstantialoffencetotheplaintiffwould constitute thedamage.Ifnotthenproofofdamageismorerelevantthequestionofquantumthanasanelementofthecauseofactionitself.

Question15: Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionalsoallowforanofferofamendsprocess?

Asageneralrule, Libertysupportsanymechanismthatallowspartiestoconciliatetheirdifferences. Howeverunlikedefamationcaseswhereanapologymayhelprestoreaplaintiff’sreputation,itis unlikelythatanyofferofamendswillunduetotheseriousinvasionofprivacy.Nonetheless,offerof amendsbywayofpaymentofdamagesorchangingofproceduresmaybetakenintoaccountbythe courtwhenconsideringwhatorderstomake.

Conclusion

Australia’sprivacyregimeislongoverdueforreform.Todatetheapproachtoprivacyprotectionhas been adhoc,rifewithexemptionsandoftenpoorlyenforced.Technologicaladvanceshaveleftprivacyprotectionbehind.Theadventandubiquitousadoptionofmobilecomputing,personalizedinternetuse,varioustrackingdevices(GPS,RFID,CCTV,etc)offergreatadvantagestotheirusers,

butalsomeanthatunlessprivacyprotectionisstronglyprotected,itwillcontinuetobeeroded. Moreoverisisapparentthatselfregulationinthisareadoesnotworkandthatthebestmechanism ofprotectionistogiveAustralianstherighttotakedirectactionagainstthosewhoinvadetheir

5 Forexampleahiddencamerain someone’sbedroomwhichisdiscovered beforemoreseriousdamageisdone.

privacy.Astrongandwelldraftedstatutorycauseofactionoffersexactlythatpossibility.Liberty stronglyendorsestheCommonwealth’sproposaltointroducesuchalegislatedright.Howeverwe remain concernedthatunlessitisdoneinacomprehensiveanduniformmanner,itmayfailto achieveitspurpose.Itishopedthatanyensuingdraftlegislationissubjecttofurtherpublic commentbeforegoingbeforetheParliament.