A Queensland tribunal brought forward the date of a hearing to accommodate a lawyer’s Christmas holiday, but refused to change it again when one of the parties – a self-represented domestic violence victim – said she could not arrange childcare at short notice.

The case has already captured significant public attention in Queensland, deeply embarrassed the state’s police service and highlighted challenges for vulnerable and marginalised people seeking justice.

Julie* had her address and other personal details leaked by a police officer to her abusive former partner. In March she won a case in the Queensland civil and administrative tribunal which found the Queensland police service was liable for the breach of her privacy.

Police are attempting to appeal the finding, but the process has been in limbo for eight months because a government lawyer filed paperwork after the 28-day deadline had expired. The tribunal was due to hold a hearing on 4 December to decide whether to accept the appeal.

Last month police asked for the hearing to be moved because its preferred barrister, a Queen’s counsel, was not available on 4 December. The government lawyer responsible for filing the late appeal documents – who may be required to give evidence about the bungle – was scheduled to go on annual leave for most of December and January.

In a submission to the tribunal, police argued it would be “against the interests of justice” if they could not brief their preferred QC against the self-represented woman, and suggested the only suitable date this year was 2 December. Otherwise police said a hearing would have to wait until February.

The tribunal asked Julie to respond to a suggestion the hearing be held at a “later date” and she replied by saying that any delay would “cause further harm and detriment”.

Late on Thursday afternoon – with one business day’s notice – the tribunal changed the date, bringing forward the hearing to Monday 2 December.

The following day Julie wrote to her Queensland civil and administrative tribunal case manager to say she was unavailable to attend on Monday.

“No one from the tribunal has bothered or considered to ask my availability,” she wrote.

“One day’s notice is not sufficient. Accommodating crown law against a self-represented victim who has three children to consider is highly unbalanced.



“I remind the tribunal of the irony that the very reason for this hearing is because of continual missed deadlines and dates by the [Queensland police service].”

The tribunal responded to Julie on Friday afternoon – 75 minutes before the registry closed for the weekend – to say if she could not attend she needed to file specific paperwork with the tribunal seeking an adjournment. She was at a Gold Coast water park with her children at the time, and could not file the form in time for it to be received before the hearing date.

“This seems to be the way our justice system works,” said Renee Eaves, a victims’ advocate and police data misuse victim who is supporting Julie. “If you have access to lawyers, you get accommodations that other people don’t.

“Right through this process it has been stacked against the woman representing herself and quite frankly it’s a disgrace.

“[The tribunal] is supposed to be the ‘people’s court’. Yet they accommodate the police no questions asked because they claim it would be unjust to not be able to have a particular QC.

“The fact they then can’t understand that a mother who is representing herself might need more than a day to arrange to be there, or that she might not be prepared, speaks volumes about how disconnected these decision-makers are from real people.”

A month ago the state’s police minister, Mark Ryan, said he wanted the case to be resolved after being asked by Guardian Australia why the state had been willing to allow it to drag on in a manner that was compounding the victim’s trauma.

“I’m keen to see the matter resolved. It’s been going on long enough,” Ryan said.

But since those comments police filed documents that indicate the appeal will continue, including an application to have the hearing closed to the public.

“That doesn’t sound like resolving it to me,” Eaves said. “It sounds like police now trying to continue the fight but behind closed doors so that they can’t be held to account for the way they have continued to pursue this woman who is unquestionably owed compensation for what she has been through.

“The victim wants the door left open and the light on, thank you very much.”

Any compensation Julie could receive from the tribunal is capped at $100,000. She says she incurred costs far greater after she twice moved her family in fear after her details were leaked.