Australia: Privacy Protection In The Courts: The Jane Doe Case

Last Updated: 13 September 2007
Article by John Carroll and Gretchen Bennett

The decision of Jane Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] VCC 281 is the second judgment in Australia to award a plaintiff damages for conduct that amounts to a breach of an individual's personal privacy. Doe v ABC adds a new layer to the protection of privacy in Australia because it applies common law approaches from both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. This common law remedy is of course available in addition to the protection afforded by privacy legislation. It is a reminder that the common law is flexible enough to provide remedies in innovative ways to compensate individuals injured as a result of unjustifiable conduct.

Facts of the case

The applicant (known as Jane Doe) had been attacked and raped by her estranged husband, YZ. YZ was charged and convicted with two counts of rape and one further count of common assault.

On the day that YZ's sentence was handed down, the radio news service reported on the case. The news report identified YZ by name, revealed that the offences had occurred in Jane Doe's home, named the suburb in which her home was located, described the part of Melbourne the suburb was in, and identified Jane Doe as the victim of the crimes, referring to her by name. Ms Doe claimed that she suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of the publicity. She claimed that the publicity was humiliating and distressing and caused her to withdraw from ordinary social contact for two years.

The publication of this information was found to be in breach of section 4(1A) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (Vic). Section 4(1A) makes it an offence to publish information which identifies a victim of sexual assault.

Ms Doe claimed damages resulting from the broadcasts on four grounds: breach of statutory duty; negligence; breach of privacy; and breach of confidence. Justice Hampel found in Ms Doe's favour on all four grounds and awarded her $234,190 in damages.

Protection of privacy - the law before this case

Until 2001, the often touted general legal principle was that the common law in Australia did not protect privacy. To be eligible for damages, a breach of privacy had to be able to be characterised as a civil wrong recognised by the Court, for example, assault, battery, trespass or breach of confidence.

In 2001 the High Court handed down its decision of ABC v Lenah Game Meats (2001) 208 CLR 199. The High Court did not go as far as to say that there was now a specific right to claim damages for breach of privacy. What the High Court did say, however, was that there was no bar to the development of such an action. The High Court looked at international developments in this area. Chief Justice Gleeson was seemingly impressed by developments in the law of breach of confidence in the UK which afforded protection for some classes of breach of privacy. Other members of the High Court appeared to advocate the US approach of a separate tort of invasion of privacy.

Since then, there have been very few cases in Australia which have canvassed this issue. The most daring of recent decisions was the Queensland District Court decision of Grosse v Purvis (2003) Aust Torts Reports 81-706 in which $178,000 in damages was awarded for a course of conduct analogous to stalking. Damages were awarded on the basis of a tort of invasion of privacy. By contrast, in a case decided by a single judge in the Victorian Supreme Court in 2004 (Giller v Procopets [2004] VSC 113) the Court declined to find the existence of a tort of invasion of privacy because, "the law has not developed to the point where the law in Australia recognises an action for breach of privacy".

As Justice Hampel herself commented, the decision in Doe v ABC takes "the next incremental step" in the protection of privacy at the common law level in Australia. In this decision, Justice Hampel has awarded damages to a plaintiff on the basis of breach of confidence and the tort of invasion of privacy.

Breach of confidence

Justice Hampel found that the publication of Ms Doe's personal information constituted a breach of confidence by the ABC. The doctrine of breach of confidence has received increasing attention in UK courts in recent times. It has been used by plaintiffs in a number of cases in the UK where a tabloid has published personal information about a celebrity where the information published was of a type which would be reasonably regarded as confidential. Until Doe v ABC, breach of confidence has not been found to be a cause of action available to those seeking compensation for an invasion of privacy in Australia.

The traditional common law doctrine of breach of confidence requires:

  • that a confidential relationship existed between the parties;
  • that the information is of a confidential nature;
  • that there had been an unauthorised use of the information by the defendant to the detriment of the plaintiff; and
  • the plaintiff suffered injury and as a result was entitled to damages.

In a series of decisions over the last five years, UK courts decided that the doctrine was ripe for change. These decisions discarded the need for a pre-existing relationship of trust and confidence, stating that an obligation of confidence arises "whenever a person receives information who knows or ought to know is fairly and reasonably to be regarded as confidential" (Campbell v MGM Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457). This change, said the courts, reflects the need to protect human autonomy and dignity - "the right to control the dissemination of information about one's private life" (Campbell). This expansion of the concept of breach of confidence beyond pre-existing relationships of confidentiality such as employment and trade secret situations and has allowed UK courts to apply the doctrine to one-off situations of publications of personal information.

Justice Hampel followed the UK authorities and Gleeson CJ's comments in Lenah Game Meats and concluded that:

"... it is no longer necessary for there to be a relationship of trust and confidence in order to protect confidential information. The obligation of confidence extends to a wider range of people, and is defined by the reference to the circumstances, not a relationship." [110]

In the present case, Justice Hampel found three factors which imported an obligation of confidence into the circumstances surrounding the relevant publications:

  • the nature of the information;
  • the circumstances whereby ABC became aware of the information; and
  • the effect of section 4(1A) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act.

Justice Hampel found that the information regarding the sexual assault was clearly private information. ABC only became aware of this information from the remarks of the judge during YZ's sentencing. The effect of section 4(1A) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act was again to give the information a private character. Justice Hampel found that each factor alone created an obligation of confidence but the three in combination created "powerful circumstances importing an obligation of confidence" [128]. Ms Doe therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to this information. Justice Hampel found that in the circumstances Ms Doe's conduct in revealing the relevant information to a number of people close to her was not inconsistent with this expectation of confidentiality. The publication by ABC was therefore in breach of the obligation of confidence which it owed to Ms Doe.

Invasion of privacy

Justice Hampel also found that the publication of Ms Doe's personal information constituted a tortious action of invasion of privacy by the ABC. She reviewed the UK cases and noted that the UK had rejected the development of such a cause of action (see Wainwright v Home Office [2003] 3 WAR 1139), instead protecting privacy by the expansion of the doctrine of breach of confidence. After examining the comments made about a tort of the invasion of privacy in Lenah Game Meats and the subsequent Australian cases of Grosse v Purvis and Giller v Procopets, Justice Hampel took a different approach to the UK courts. She took, what she describes as, the:

"bold step ... to respond, although cautiously, to the invitation held out by the High Court ... to award damages for the tortious action of invasion of privacy."

Justice Hampel decided to take a similar approach to that taken in Grosse v Purvis. Justice Hampel declined to state what the limits of the doctrine were or define what defences would be available. She held, applying general tortious principles, that ABC's conduct constituted an actionable wrong because:

  • personal information had been published which was clearly of a private nature;
  • there was a prohibition on the publication of that information (section 4(1A) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act); and
  • there was no public interest in the publication of the information.

Importance of section 4(1A)

It is noteworthy that Justice Hampel justified both of these actions, in part, by virtue of the prohibition on publication contained in section 4(1A) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act. Justice Hampel repeatedly commented that the prohibition in section 4(1A) strengthened the private character of the information published and the expectation that the information should have been treated as confidential. By being able to uncontroversially characterise the published information as being of a private nature, Justice Hampel did not have to delve into a complex balancing act to determine whether publication was justifiable in a society which advocates free speech. This balancing act has a major role in media cases in both breach of confidence in the UK and invasion of privacy cases in the US.

Implications of the decision

There will be a host of interesting developments to come in this area. Two jurisdictions have now taken up the challenge laid down by the High Court in Lenah Game Meats. Damages for psychiatric injury have now been awarded in Queensland and Victoria resulting from invasion of a person's privacy. In Queensland the invasion of privacy was a physical invasion by an individual while in Victoria it was a publication of highly personal information by a corporation.

This case suggests that damages claims for actions constituting the invasion of privacy of individuals are here to stay. For officers in the public service it is important to be aware that this remedy is available to individuals in addition to the remedies available under relevant privacy legislation for breaches of privacy.

This case does, however, leave us with a host of unanswered questions about the scope of protection of private information that will be available in Australia at common law. We still do not know what "private" information is. We don't know what defences will be available and whether Australian courts will be sympathetic to arguments of freedom of speech. We also don't know whether the tort of invasion of privacy will continue to develop in tandem with an expanded doctrine of breach of confidence. We do know that this case provides a cautionary tale for all organisations and government agencies which publish personal information about individuals.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.