IV DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA
It is worth noting that when the Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’) considered the matter of privacy, it did so in terms of the four United States categories — namely, intrusion on solitude or seclusion, appropriation of identity, public disclosure of private facts and display in a false light. The ALRC suggested that Australia should extend protection to the second and third categories, that is, public disclosure of private facts and appropriation of identity.[152] By contrast, in Lenah Game Meats Gleeson CJ favoured the United Kingdom approach, protecting private information based on breach of confidence.[153] However, Gummow and Hayne JJ (with whom Gaudron J agreed) indicated that the first and third categories of privacy under the United States rubric — public disclosure of private facts and unreasonable intrusion on solitude or seclusion — came closest to protecting the interest identified by Sedley LJ and other judges as worthy of protection:[154] ‘the fundamental value of personal autonomy’.[155]
The only Australian case to date that has recognised a right to privacy also relied upon the United States framework, endorsing an action for breach of privacy in the form of an unreasonable intrusion on another’s solitude.[156] In the 2003 Queensland District Court case Grosse,the plaintiff, the mayor of a local authority, alleged that she had suffered psychological harm in the form of, inter alia, post-traumatic stress disorder as the consequence of a prolonged course of stalking and harassment by the defendant, her former lover. This conduct included persistent loitering at or near the plaintiff’s places of residence, work or recreation; instances of spying on her private life, unauthorised entry to her house and yard; undesired physical contact; repeated offensive phone calls; use by the defendant of offensive and insulting language towards the plaintiff; and offensive behaviour towards her friends and relatives.[157] The plaintiff’s action was based on a variety of causes of action, including invasion of privacy, harassment, trespass to land, private nuisance, intentional infliction of harm under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton,[158] and negligent infliction of psychiatric damage. The defendant argued that his conduct was innocent, and done for the protection of the plaintiff’s reputation and that of a non-profit organisation in which they were both interested.[159]
he defendant argued that his conduct was innocent, and done for the protection of the plaintiff’s reputation and that of a non-profit organisation in which they were both interested.
[159]I wonder which non-profit org they were talking about????
