QCATA affirmed QCAT's decision that the state's privacy principles did not apply to the appellant's personal information published in a news bulletin.
That personal information was obtained during an investigation of his misconduct regarding leaked CCTV footage of the arrest of a man at the police station where undue force was used.
The judgment states that the appellant, Mr Flori, a police officer in the Queensland Police Service, is
aggrieved by the publication of certain personal details contained in an Executive Briefing Note concerning him. The information was about a search warrant which was executed at his home address.
On 16 March 2012 the Executive Briefing Note (EBN) was prepared. An EBN is a document used to communicate important information to other officers in the QPS. The EBN was distributed to other officers in the QPS.
Mr Flori complained that the personal information in the EBN was released to a journalist, in breach of Privacy Principles 4 and 11 of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (Privacy Act). The personal information was then the subject of a published article.
His complaint was dealt with initially by the Information Commissioner. The complaint was then referred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It determined that the EBN was not subject to the privacy principles under the Privacy Act. Mr Flori appealed to the appeal division of QCAT.
QCATA dismissed the appeal, holding that on the proper construction of item 3 of schedule 1 to the Privacy Act, the EBN was a document which contained personal information arising out of a complaint, or an investigation of misconduct, under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001.
Mr Flori seeks leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of QCATA.
The issue raised is whether the EBN is a document which contains personal information arising out of a complaint, or an investigation of misconduct, under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001.
That is a question of the statutory construction of item 3 of schedule 1 of the Privacy Act. Section 16 of that Act provides that the documents mentioned in schedule 1 are not subject to the information privacy principles in the Act.
The respondent approached the hearing on the basis that if an error by QCATA could be established, leave was warranted.