Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart has backflipped on his handling of a controversial police leak case, contacting a domestic violence complainant to belatedly make good on his offer of a personal meeting.

The Gold Coast woman, who wishes to know why a police officer was not charged for leaking her address to her allegedly abusive former husband, said Commissioner Stewart called this morning to confirm he would meet to discuss her case.

The Commissioner's about-face came just hours after the ABC reported that he had abandoned a public offer he made last month to meet Elizabeth (for legal reasons, not her real name) to explain the decision to treat the serious privacy breach as an internal disciplinary matter.

Elizabeth wrote to the Commissioner last week to take up his offer, but was told by his office "the matter is now closed".

She told the ABC in a call today that Commissioner Stewart had said his office's response to her was "somewhat confusing to say the least" but he took responsibility for it.

Elizabeth said Commissioner Stewart told her: "Believe me, when I said 'I was happy to meet you', I meant it."

She said he told her he was happy to discuss her concerns about the consequences faced by Senior Constable Neil Punchard, who leaked her address from the confidential police database to her former husband who has been under a string of domestic violence orders.

Elizabeth said she was grateful for the Commissioner's response, but had told him that her case had "slipped through the cracks" and could have been handled better.

Police Minister Mark Ryan said he had "spoken with the Queensland Police Commissioner about this matter" yesterday following queries by the ABC.

"I understand that police are willing to meet and discuss the concerns that have been raised," Mr Ryan said.

It follows criticism by the police watchdog of the lack of information given by police to Elizabeth.

'Lol. She will flip': Officer gave out complainant's address

Text messages had revealed how Constable Punchard had found Elizabeth's home address via the confidential police database and given it to her former husband, who was subject to several domestic violence orders.

In texts, Constable Punchard told the man: "...just tell her you know where she lives and leave it at that. Lol. She will flip."

"I await the email and her reply. Lol. She will f...ing explode. Lmao."

Constable Punchard also coached the man on legal tactics in his Family Court matter, offering to give other police a "heads up" if he was subject to a complaint.

"If she gets the police, tell them to contact me or give me their names and I will contact them," he said.

"I won't hinder the investigation, but I will give them a heads up on what has happened."

Sorry, this video has expired Police Commissioner Ian Stewart tells media in March he's happy to talk with a domestic violence victim whose details were leaked.

Elizabeth had earlier accused Commissioner Stewart of misleading the public by suggesting at a March 28 media conference he met with her previously.

"I'm certainly happy to talk to that lady personally again if that would help her," Commissioner Stewart said.

Elizabeth said they had never met and the comment was "dishonest and misleading", although this was rejected by a police spokesman.

"The specific use of the word 'again' implied previous organisational responses of a collective nature as opposed to an individual meeting between the Commissioner and the complainant," the spokesman said.

The spokesman said that after Commissioner Stewart received Elizabeth's email on April 9 "it was determined there was no information, beyond that previously imparted and that permitted by legislation and privacy principles, available to be provided to the complainant by the commissioner or any other member of the QPS".

Commissioner Stewart originally offered the meeting when responding to criticism by the police watchdog about the level of information given to Elizabeth about the outcome of the leak investigation.

An assistant commissioner wrote to Elizabeth in April 2017 to say an investigation found "sufficient evidence to support the allegations made by you" that Constable Punchard had leaked confidential details about her and her family.

He said only that there was "a disciplinary hearing … and the matter has been addressed. I do not intend to take any further action and now consider this matter closed".

Elizabeth said she was "left in the dark" by that response, which gave her "no idea what was going to happen or what action would be taken".

The email sent to the Gold Coast mother this month from Police Commissioner Ian Stewart's office. ( Supplied )

Police and the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) have routinely prosecuted officers who access the police database without an official reason.

Constable Punchard remains an officer but is forbidden by police policy from commenting to media.

A year after police ended the probe into Constable Punchard's leak, Elizabeth said she felt like "my safety is more at risk because I feel like there are no consequences".

"I feel like Neil Punchard … has immunity. He can simply give out someone's private details … and there are no consequences for him. It's wrong," she said.

Complaint outcome 'not good enough': CCC chair

Elizabeth said she and her family were forced to move, and that she had filed a breach of privacy complaint against police in the Queensland Civil Administrative Tribunal.

Police identified her as a "high-risk aggrieved person", with a designated support officer, in August 2017.

CCC chair Alan MacSporran said Elizabeth was entitled to know why no action was taken. ( ABC News: Josh Robertson )

Elizabeth said she followed the police suggestion to contact a "professional practice manager" for further feedback but had been given "the runaround" and still had no official explanation of the disciplinary outcome.

Last month, CCC chair Alan MacSporran said the police explanation on the outcome of Elizabeth's complaint was not good enough and that "people are entitled to know what the true facts are … and what the reasons are for us not taking action".

A CCC spokesman said the watchdog's view was this approach "should generally be adopted" and included explanations for not prosecuting and "why a person who has allegations substantiated against them as part of a discipline process receives a particular sanction, subject to any privacy issues".

"Providing an explanation improves transparency and can assist the complainant understand what can often be complex legal considerations when making a decision based on all the available evidence," the spokesman said.