Exclusive: Tribunal rules police liable after officer Neil Punchard accessed woman’s address and gave it to her abusive former partner

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

A Queensland tribunal has ruled that the state’s police service breached the privacy of a domestic violence victim, whose details were accessed by a senior constable and leaked to her abusive former partner.

Julie* was forced to go into hiding after the police officer, Neil Punchard, accessed her address and other details from the police QPrime database.

Last year, she launched a breach of privacy case in the Queensland civil and administrative tribunal (QCAT) in a bid to gain compensation for having to relocate her family.

The Queensland police service (QPS) did not dispute that the leak occurred, but argued it was not liable for breaching Julie’s privacy.

Julie represented herself at a hearing late last year. Police briefed a barrister.

In a judgment on Wednesday, the tribunal found police were liable for breaching two of the state’s information privacy principles.

Queensland police charge officer with hacking after domestic violence victim's details leaked Read more

QCAT member Susan Gardiner found police had no systematic auditing process for regulating how officers used or misused the data of citizens, and that she cannot be satisfied the QPS took all reasonable measures to prevent Punchard’s unauthorised use of the QPrime system, or his disclosure of Julie’s personal information.

“The evidence before me is the QPS had no systematic auditing procedures of access to the QPrime system – even for at risk groups such as domestic violence victims,” the judgment said.

“It simply relied on a complaint or an incident to highlight a breach. The system of auditing after the fact allows for circumstances where catastrophic events involving [Julie] and the safety of her family could have occurred.

“[Police] did not audit in a systemic way to supervise access even to a group of people (domestic violence victims) who had orders in their favour. The service waited until there was a complaint or an incident, at a time after any further potential damage to this vulnerable group.

“In my view ... the QPS allowed the use of this information for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was obtained.”

Gardiner said in her judgment the level of care expected of police was “justifiably high” in relation to information it holds about domestic violence victims. .

The tribunal will now seek submissions about compensation. It can award a maximum amount of $100,000, which Julie says will not cover the extent of costs incurred as a result of having to relocate and protect her family.

Julie told Guardian Australia she was happy with the decision, but remained concerned that police, who had fought the case with the resources of crown law and engaged a barrister, would now seek to appeal the decision.

“It’s been a long road and they’ve fought me all the way,” she said. “And I’m very grateful for the member for understanding the depths of this case and finally ruling the QPS have been negligent and that everyone is at risk [of their data being misused].”

Julie, who has had several negative experiences with police since going public about the actions of Punchard, said she remained fearful that another officer could still access her details from the police database.

The QPS has previously claimed that since early 2016, it has placed increased emphasis on compliance with policies with regard to QPrime access, and since then several officers have been charged with computer hacking and similar offences. Punchard was charged with nine counts of computer hacking late last year, after a long campaign by Julie.

However there remain significant concerns about the police’s opaque approach to data protection. Guardian Australia revealed last year that in most cases, complaints about inappropriate access of the QPrime system result in no punishment.

Guardian Australian also revealed that police block citizens from accessing their personal data in QPrime – a right under Queensland law and a fundamental check against government power – on public interest grounds.

Punchard refused to answer several questions when he gave evidence to QCAT, citing his right against self-incrimination.

The tribunal heard, and police accepted, evidence that Punchard made “inflammatory comments” when he sent Julie’s details to her violent former husband.

“Just tell her you know where she lives and leave it at that. Lol. She will flip,” Punchard wrote in one text message.

He now faces nine charges of computer hacking, which remain before the Queensland courts.