The Queensland government is fighting a domestic violence victim in court, in an attempt to avoid paying up to $100,000 in compensation for having to relocate her family after her personal details were leaked by a police officer.

The woman, who has been referred to in previous media reports as Julie*, told Guardian Australia she felt “intimidated” by the government’s attempts to brief a senior counsel in the supposedly “accessible” and “inexpensive” Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

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.

Punchard was disciplined but not charged with a criminal offence and remains a serving police officer. Julie told the tribunal she remained fearful knowing he still had access to her details.

“An officer gave the details of where I was living, gave them to his mate, using the police database as if it was a Yellow Pages,” Julie said during a QCAT hearing in June. “Now, this officer, Neil Punchard, is still in a job. He still has access to the police computer. And I have had to move ... [and] cross my fingers like this and hope he doesn’t do it again.

“I’m already intimidated. I come here today because there is an officer with a gun and a grudge and access to my private details. The damage is done.”

Julie launched a breach of privacy claim and is seeking compensation for having to relocate her family after her details were leaked. The matter is being heard by QCAT after she lodged a complaint with the Queensland office of the information commissioner. The maximum payout she can receive is $100,000 and she estimates the ordeal has cost her “much more than that”.

The police service is represented in the proceedings by the government legal service, Crown Law Queensland. The lawyers are instructed by the Queensland Government Insurance Fund.

Julie is self-represented in QCAT. She says she wanted to mediate the matter and negotiate a settlement. Instead, the government applied to the tribunal to brief a senior counsel.

During the June hearing, a government solicitor could not give the tribunal a guarantee they would not ultimately pursue Julie for legal costs.

“I’m here trying to recoup the costs that I’ve had to bear after having to relocate and the extra security for my family after the gross breach to my privacy,” Julie told QCAT. “I am the victim. Yet, I understand today that the public purse is funding [the defence of] the state and the police union will be funding [the defence of] the officer, no doubt, that disclosed my private details to a violent perpetrator.

“Now, how would it make sense for me to wear the costs of having to brief or bringing in a senior counsel in order to recoup the expense that has been incurred by me so far? I absolutely see this as absurd. The crown has said that this matter is complex. What is complex about this?

“I’m supposed to wear the expense of senior counsel if I want a level playing field. I wish for this to be fair. This goes against everything that QCAT says it is.”

The police defence to Julie’s claim is broadly that the state should not be held responsible for the actions of rogue individuals.

Guardian Australia approached the premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, with questions about whether this position was an abrogation of the government’s responsibilities in managing and protecting the sensitive personal data of citizens.

Palaszczuk, who is a public advocate for domestic violence victims, was also asked why her government had not sought to support Julie, or to negotiate a settlement with her.

The premier’s office responded with a one-line statement.

“It would be inappropriate to comment on a matter currently before QCAT, just as it would be inappropriate for the premier to intervene or become involved in tribunal proceedings in any way.”

Julie has also attempted unsuccessfully through right to information to obtain a copy of her QPRIME file, which would include details about how and when her personal data had been accessed, and by which officers.



Police have refused to hand over the file. She has made a similar application to QCAT but has not yet been granted access.

Police said in a statement the service “has substantial information holdings and takes information privacy very seriously”.

Police said that, as of last month, 11 officers had been charged for improperly accessing the system. Eight officers had been stood down from official duties for conducting unauthorised checks of QPRIME and five suspended.

The statement did not respond to specific questions posed by the Guardian, which which included why Punchard had not been charged, and why Julie had been unable to access her police data file. In other cases, people who applied for their files have been granted access.

“[Police] cannot comment further on access to specific information on this system for privacy reasons.”

The matter is ongoing.

* Julie is a pseudonym to protect her identity. She has also been referred to as Elizabeth in previous reporting about her case.

