The Queensland police service has launched another attempt to block compensation to a domestic violence victim, who was forced into hiding after her details were accessed by a senior constable and leaked to her abusive former partner.

Julie* won a landmark breach of privacy case against the police in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) last month. The ruling would have entitled Julie to compensation, including for the cost of having to relocate her family, capped at $100,000.

On Friday, the state government’s legal office, Crown Law, filed an appeal against the tribunal decision, likely dragging the case through another complex hearing.

“This appeal is gut-wrenching because I’ve worked so hard to fight for justice,” Julie told Guardian Australia. “This just adds another devastating level to the abuse and the Queensland police service failing to accept responsibility. When will this end?”

The Queensland government has already come under intense criticism for refusing to settle Julie’s compensation claim in the first instance, instead choosing to fight the breach of privacy case in QCAT.

The government briefed a barrister for a hearing last year. Julie represented herself. Throughout, she has had to endure a court battle that legal experts say ran contrary to the state’s responsibility to act as a “model litigant”.

Three times during the case, Crown Law missed filing deadlines and sent submissions after they were due. The application to appeal was also submitted after the 28-day deadline.

In a judgment on 27 March, a QCAT member, Susan Gardiner, found police had breached two of the the state’s information privacy principles.



Gardiner found police had no systematic auditing process for regulating how officers used or misused the data of citizens, and that she could not be satisfied the Queensland police service took all reasonable measures to prevent the unauthorised use of the QPrime system, or the disclosure of Julie’s personal information.



“The evidence before me is the [Queensland police service] 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.

Throughout the case, police have not disputed that Julie’s privacy was breached. Instead they claimed police were not responsible for that breach.



Crown Law claims, in the application to appeal, that the tribunal erred on several grounds, including by taking into account that Julie was a domestic violence victim.



“The tribunal erred at law by having regard for an irrelevant consideration, namely that the personal information related to domestic violence, in determining liability,” the application says.



Julie told Guardian Australia she had just spent significant time preparing submissions regarding compensation, and was devastated the police would force her through another hearing on technical grounds.

Guardian Australia understands the government has now spent more money fighting the case than it could ever been ordered to pay in compensation.

The aggressive legal strategy comes amid widespread public concern about cases where Queensland police officers unlawfully accessed the data of citizens.

The Queensland police service has previously claimed that since early 2016 it 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.

The officer who accessed Julie’s details, senior constable Neil Punchard, was charged with nine counts of computer hacking late last year.



But 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.

