Human Righrs & FuLlic Inreresr

Uharter of Puman Pghts News|etter

Pght to Prvacy Lnhanced by Uharter
Ju|y 2007 - Issue 4

The Vicrorian Charrer of Human Righrs and
ResponsiLiliries 2006 (rhe Charrer Charrer Charrer Charrer) came inro
operarion on 1 January 2007 virh rhe exceprion
of Divisions 3 and 4 of Farr 3, vhich commence
on 1 January 2008. To help you navigare rhe
Charrer, VGSO is providing a series of
nevslerrers.
Togerher virh rhe Human Righrs Unir of rhe
Deparrmenr of Jusrice (Human Righrs Unir Human Righrs Unir Human Righrs Unir Human Righrs Unir), ve
idenrify vhar ve Lelieve ro Le rhe mosr relevanr
considerarions in rhe implemenrarion of rhe
Charrer and provide you virh simple and
informarive marerial ro help you address rhese
issues.
This fourrh nevslerrer discusses rhe righr ro
privacy under rhe Charrer and provides a
suggesred checklisr rhar may Le useful ro
governmenr deparrmenrs vhen considering rhe
compariLiliry of legislarion virh rhe righr ro
privacy under rhe Charrer.
John Cain John Cain John Cain John Cain
Vicrorian Governmenr Soliciror
Lnhanced rght to prvacy
The righr ro privacy underpins many facers of
rhe lav and is prorecred ro differenr exrenrs Ly
Vicrorian legislarion. Ir is direcrly recognised
rhrough rhe operarion of rhe Surveillance
Devices Acr 1999 (SD SD SD SD Acr Acr Acr Acr), rhe Healrh Records
Acr 2001 (HR Acr HR Acr HR Acr HR Acr), rhe Informarion Frivacy Acr
2000 (IF Acr IF Acr IF Acr IF Acr) and incidenrally in orher

Appontment of 5peca| Uounse|
(Puman Pghts)
Joanna Davidson has recenrly Leen appoinred ro
rhe posirion of Special Counsel (Human Righrs) ar
VGSO. Joanna vorked virh VGSO some years
ago and, since rhar rime, has Leen vorking virh
rhe Nev Zealand Crovn Lav Office as Special
Counsel (Human Righrs).
In rhis role in Nev Zealand Joanna appeared as
counsel in many of rhe leading cases in rhe
developmenr of rhe Nev Zealand Bill of Righrs
Acr. Wirh her knovledge of human righrs lav
and rhe operarion and applicarion of rhe Nev
Zealand Acr, vhich is similar ro rhe Charrer,
Joanna vill Le a valuaLle resource and ream
memLer ar VGSO.
Joanna can Le conracred on 8684 0899.

legislarion, for example, rhe Freedom of
Informarion Acr 1982.
The SD Acr regulares rhe use of surveillance
devices ro moniror people's acriviries and
resrricrs rhe use of informarion oLrained rhrough
such surveillance. The HR Acr prorecrs rhe use
and disclosure of personal medical records or
medical informarion concerning an individual.
The IF Acr is primarily concerned virh
prorecrion of personal informarion, regularing
rhe vay organisarions collecr, use, disclose and
provide access ro personal informarion.
1

Fage 2
Wirh rhe enacrmenr of rhe Charrer, rhe righr of
all human Leings ro privacy has Leen given
explicir recognirion and more comprehensive
prorecrion. The righr ro privacy under rhe
Charrer includes a righr nor ro have one's family,
home or correspondence unlavfully or
arLirrarily inrerfered virh.
The Charrer has Leen inrroduced for rhe purpose
of increasing rhe prorecrion of rhe human righrs
of all people in Vicroria Ly crearing a human
righrs dialogue Lerveen Farliamenr, rhe
Execurive and rhe courrs, and Ly placing
differenr oLligarions on various Vicrorian Lodies
ro consider human righrs vhen making decisions
and carrying our funcrions. The prorecrion of an
individual's righr ro privacy under rhe Charrer
should complemenr and operare consisrenrly
virh rhe prorecrion of privacy under rhe SD Acr,
rhe HR Acr and rhe IF Acr.
The prorecrion of rhe righr ro privacy under s
13(a) of rhe Charrer is modelled on arr 17 of rhe
Inrernarional Covenanr of Civil and Folirical
Righrs (rhe ICCFR ICCFR ICCFR ICCFR). Secrion 13 of rhe Charrer
provides:
2

A person has rhe righr
(a) nor ro have his or her privacy,
family, home or correspondence
unlavfully or arLirrarily inrerfered
virh, and

Privacy, family, home or
correspondence
Privacy
Frivacy has many dimensions, encompassing:
Lodily privacy, rerrirorial privacy,
communicarions privacy, informarion privacy
and locarional privacy. The prorecrion of Lodily
privacy prevenrs inrerference virh a person's
Lodily inregriry including prorecrion from
invasive procedures or experimenrarions.
Terrirorial privacy requires prorecrion of a
person's domesric and orher environmenrs.
Communicarions privacy requires prorecrion of a
person's mail, phone and elecrronic
communicarions, and informarion privacy
prorecrs againsr rhe disclosure of personal
informarion. Locarional privacy ensures conrrol
of rechnologies rhar enaLle moniroring of
people's physical locarion and movemenr, for
example, rraffic managemenr sysrems.
3

In Coeriel and Aurik v The Nerherlands rhe
Unired Narions Human Righrs Commirree (HRC HRC HRC HRC)
considered 'rhar rhe norion of privacy refers ro
rhe sphere of a person's life in vhich he or she
can freely express his or her idenriry, Le ir Ly
enrering inro relarionships virh orhers or alone'.
4

In inrernarional lav, rhe rerm privacy covers
Lorh rhe physical and psychological inregriry of a
person and includes rhe righr ro personal
auronomy.
5

The righr nor ro have one's family, home or
correspondence inrerfered virh and nor ro Le
suLjecr ro unlavful arracks on one's honour and
repurarion,
6
fall under rhe umLrella of 'privacy'
(rhey are closely aligned virh preserving rhe
individual's idenriry and relarionships) as vell as
Leing separarely idenrified in rhe Charrer.
Family and home
The Charrer also prorecrs againsr inrerferences
virh a person's family and home. The HRC has
srared rhar rhe rerm 'family' should Le arrriLured
a Lroad inrerprerarion 'ro include all rhose
comprising rhe family as undersrood in rhe
sociery of rhe Srare parry concerned.'
7
The HRC
has considered a family's righr ro live rogerher in
Ausrralia in rhe conrexr of immigrarion
proceedings: see Winara v Ausrralia,
8
Bakhriyari
v Ausrralia,
9
and Madafferi v Ausrralia.
10
In rhese
marrers rhe HRC found rhar Ausrralia had
violared arr 17 of rhe ICCFR Lecause rhe removal
of one or more family memLers from Ausrralia
consrirured an arLirrary inrerference virh rhe
righr ro nor have one's family arLirrarily
inrerfered virh.
The rerm 'home' has Leen inrerprered Ly rhe
HRC as indicaring 'rhe place vhere a person
resides or carries our his or her] usual
occuparion.'
11
The HRC's inrerprerarion of
'home' is consisrenr virh a purposive approach ro
inrerprering arr 17 of rhe ICCFR 'given rhe
oLjecrive of prorecring rhe places in vhich a
person is haLirually presenr'.
12

Fage 3
Correspondence
Frorecrion from unlavful or arLirrary
inrerference virh a person's correspondence is
also provided Ly rhe Charrer. The HRC has
srared rhar an individual's righr nor ro have rheir
correspondence inrerfered virh includes rhe
righr of a person ro have rheir vrirren and verLal
communicarions prorecred, and requires rhe
inregriry and confidenrialiry of such
correspondence ro Le guaranreed Ly lav, and in
pracrice.
13

Unlawful or arbitrary interference
The Charrer prorecrs an individual's righr ro
privacy ro rhe exrenr rhar any inrerference virh
rhe individual's righr ro privacy musr nor Le
unlavful or arLirrary. An unlavful inrerference
is an inrerference virh an individual's righr ro
privacy vhich is nor expressly provided for Ly
currenr lav. The relevanr lav rhar aurhorises an
inrerference virh privacy should Le precise and
circumscriLed rarher rhan Lroad and amLiguous.
So, if rhe inrerference virh privacy is provided
for Ly lav ir vill nor, prima facie, limir an
individual's righr ro privacy (suLjecr ro rhe
inrerference nor Leing arLirrary).
Frorecrion from an arLirrary inrerference
requires rhar rhe inrerference musr Le reasonaLle
and oLjecrively ser our Ly rhe lav. In orher
vords, rhe inrerference cannor Le open-ended or
Lroad so as ro impose a suLjecrive discrerionary
pover on a decision-maker. The conferral of
Lroad povers on decision-makers, rhar can Le
exercised in a vay rhar unreasonaLly inrerferes
virh a person's righr ro privacy, may Le regarded
as alloving an arLirrary inrerference. In such a
case, rhe righrs under s 13(a) of rhe Charrer
vould Le limired.
The limir on rhe righr ro privacy may srill Le
permissiLle if ir can Le suLsranriared 'as a
reasonaLle limir rhar] can Le demonsrraLly
jusrified in a free and democraric sociery' under
rhe general limirarion clause in s 7 of rhe
Charrer.
14

Implications of the new right to privacy
As parr of rhe implemenrarion of rhe Charrer rhe
Vicrorian governmenr is revieving all nev and
currenr legislarion, policies and procedures for
compariLiliry virh rhe Charrer.
15
Each provision,
policy or pracrice needs ro Le individually
considered in lighr of rhe righrs ser our under rhe
Charrer. When derermining rhe compariLiliry of
rhe provision, policy or pracrice virh rhe righr ro
privacy under rhe Charrer rhe folloving
'checklisr' may Le useful:
1. Does rhe provision, policy or pracrice
inrerfere inrerfere inrerfere inrerfere in any vay virh an individual's
righr ro privacy, family, home or
correspondence!
This requires considerarion of vherher rhe
rerms of rhe provision raise privacy issues
and vherher rhe applicarion of rhe provision,
or rhe exercise of a discrerion under rhe
provision, may raise privacy issues.
'Inrerference' proLaLly means a disrurLance
or an unvanred involvemenr.
Where rhere is a pover ro exercise a
discrerion rhar may inrerfere virh rhe righr
ro privacy, rhoughr should Le given as ro
vherher rhe exercise of rhar pover could
amounr ro an arLirrary inrerference virh rhe
righr ro privacy.
2. Is rhere an unlavful unlavful unlavful unlavful or arLirrary arLirrary arLirrary arLirrary inrerference
virh rhe righr ro privacy erc!
To derermine lavfulness, look ar vherher
rhe inrerference is aurhorised Ly lav and
check vherher rhe lav is precise and
circumscriLed.
To derermine vherher a provision, policy or
pracrice is arLirrary, consider vherher rhe
inrerference is reasonaLle and clearly ser our.
Also consider vherher rhe provision, policy
or pracrice gives a Lroad discrerionary pover
ro a decision-maker. If so, consider vherher
rhe exercise of rhe pover is suLjecr ro any
oLjecrive crireria and vherher rhe pover is
necessary and reasonaLle in rhe
circumsrances.
3. If rhere is an unlavful or arLirrary
inrerference virh an individual's righr ro
privacy, can ir Le demonsrraLly jusrified in a
free and democraric sociery!
Fage 4
Consider rhe facrors ser our in s 7(2) of rhe
Charrer ro derermine vherher rhe inrerference
may Le demonsrraLly jusrified in a free and
democraric sociery Lased on human digniry,
equaliry and freedom. The relevanr facrors are:
rhe narure of rhe righr, rhe imporrance and
purpose of rhe limirarion, rhe narure and
exrenr of rhe limirarion, rhe relarionship
Lerveen rhe limirarion and irs purpose, and
vherher rhere are any less resrricrive means
reasonaLly availaLle ro achieve rhe purpose
rhar rhe limirarion seeks ro achieve.
An analysis of vherher rhe limir on rhe righr is
reasonaLle involves a Lalancing exercise and
considerarion of vherher rhe limirarion is
rarional and proporrionare ro achieve rhe ends
soughr. The quesrion of vherher rhere are any
less resrricrive means availaLle ro achieve rhe
same purpose is likely ro Le an imporranr
considerarion.
If rhe limir on rhe righr ro privacy cannor Le
jusrified in accordance virh s 7 of rhe Charrer,
rhe provision vill Le incompariLle virh rhe
Charrer.
5gnfcant cases on the rght
to prvacy
International cases
R (on the application of Countryside Alliance)
v Attorney-General [2006] EWCA Civ 817
The Appellanrs argued rhar rhe operarion of rhe
Hunring Acr 2004 infringed rheir righrs under
arr 8, righr ro privare life, of sch 1 rhe Human
Righrs Acr 1998 (UK) (HRA HRA HRA HRA) Lecause rhey vere
prevenred from using rheir land or alloving
orhers ro use rheir land for rhe purpose of
hunring. The Courr of Appeal rejecred rhe claim
and srared rhar rhe Appellanrs' suLmissions had
srrerched rhe amLir of arr 8 far vider rhan had
Leen previously recognised Ly rhe European
Courr of Human Righrs. The Courr of Appeal
said rhar rhe Appellanrs' suLmissions
misconsrrued rhe narure of rhe righrs under arr 8,
concluding rhar rhe Hunring Acr 2004 did nor
engage righrs under arr 8 on any of rhe grounds
asserred Ly rhe Appellanrs.
Toonen v Australia, Communication No.
488/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992
(1994)
Mr Toonen lodged a complainr virh rhe HRC on
25 DecemLer 1991, challenging rvo provisions of
rhe Tasmanian Criminal Code, vhich
criminalised homosexual acriviry Lerveen men,
on rhe Lasis rhar his privare life and liLerry vere
rhrearened Ly rhe conrinued exisrence of rhe
provisions. The complainr alleged rhar rhe
provisions violared arr 17 of rhe ICCFR (righr ro
privacy) Lecause, among orher reasons, rhey
enaLled rhe police ro enrer a household on rhe
mere suspicion rhar rvo consenring adulr
homosexual men may Le commirring a criminal
offence Ly engaging in rhe prohiLired sexual acrs.
The HRC held rhar 'ir is undispured rhar adulr
consensual acriviry in privare is covered Ly rhe
concepr of privacy.' As rhe prohiLirion againsr
privare homosexual Lehaviour vas provided for
Ly lav, rhe HRC vas required ro consider
vherher rhose provisions vere arLirrary and, in
doing so, highlighred rhe folloving:
'rhe inrroducrion of rhe concepr of
arLirrariness is inrended ro guaranree
rhar even inrerference provided for Ly
rhe lav should Le in accordance virh
rhe provisions, aims and oLjecrives of
rhe Covenanr and should Le, in any
evenr, reasonaLle in rhe circumsrances.
The Commirree inrerprers rhe
requiremenr of reasonaLleness ro imply
rhar any inrerference virh privacy musr
Le proporrional ro rhe end soughr and Le
necessary in rhe circumsrances of any
given case.'
The HRC concluded rhar rhe provisions did nor
meer rhe 'reasonaLleness' resr in rhe
circumsrances of rhe case and rhey arLirrarily
inrerfered virh Mr Toonen's righr ro privacy.
The HRC held rhar rhere vas a clear violarion of
arr 17 Ly Ausrralia.
A noteworthy Victorian case
Royal Womens Hospital v Medical
Practitioners Board of Victoria [2006] VSCA
(20 April 2006)
In January 2000, Ms X arrended rhe emergency
deparrmenr of rhe Royal Women's Hospiral
Fage 5
(RWH RWH RWH RWH) in a srare of agirarion, exhiLiring
hysrerical and suicidal Lehaviours and requesred
rhar her pregnancy Le rerminared. An aLorrion
vas conducred in FeLruary 2000 folloving
confirmarion from a numLer of healrh
professionals rhar Ms X vas acurely suicidal and
vould mosr likely kill herself unless her foerus
vas aLorred. Ms X vas approximarely 32 veeks
pregnanr.
In 2001 Senaror Julian McGauran reporred rhe
marrer ro rhe Medical Fracririoner's Board of
Vicroria (rhe Board rhe Board rhe Board rhe Board). Senaror McGauran
suLsequenrly requesred derails of rhe marrer from
rhe Coroner (vho held Ms X's medical file) and
rhe Coroner forvarded copies of Ms X's medical
files ro rhe Senaror. Senaror McGauran rhen
made a formal complainr ro rhe Board and
enclosed copies of Ms X's medical files.
In order ro facilirare rheir invesrigarion, rhe
Board oLrained a search varranr from rhe
Magisrrares' Courr, vhich enaLled rhem ro seize
medical files from rhe RWH. The RWH rhen
soughr an order rhar rhe documenrs rhar vere
seized in rhe varranr Le rerurned on rhe Lasis
rhar rhey vere suLjecr ro puLlic inreresr
immuniry. The Magisrrare concluded rhar rhe
docrrine of puLlic inreresr immuniry did nor
apply. The RWH rhen appealed ro rhe Supreme
Courr. The appeal vas dismissed and rhe RWH
appealed ro rhe Courr of Appeal.
The Courr of Appeal invired rhe parries ro make
suLmissions Lased on inrernarional human righrs
lav. The RWH included human righrs
argumenrs in rheir suLmissions, focussing on rhe
righr ro privacy and irs applicarion ro rhe specific
circumsrances of Ms X. Whilsr rhe appeal vas
dismissed, rhe relevance and imporrance of
argumenrs Lased on inrernarional human righrs
lav vas emphasised Ly Maxvell F.
In respecr of rhe uriliry of inrernarional human
righrs lav argumenrs, Maxvell F commenred as
follovs:
1. The courr vill encourage pracririoners ro
develop human righrs-Lased argumenrs
vhere relevanr ro a quesrion in rhe
proceeding.
2. Fracririoners should Le alerr ro rhe
availaLiliry of such argumenrs, and should
nor Le hesiranr ro advance rhem vhere
relevanr.
3. Since rhe developmenr of an Ausrralian
jurisprudence draving on inrernarional
human righrs lav is in irs early srages,
furrher progress vill necessarily involve
judges and pracririoners vorking rogerher ro
develop a common experrise.


Ior further nformaton Ior further nformaton Ior further nformaton Ior further nformaton

The Vicrorian Governmenr Soliciror's Office
(VGSO) has esraLlished a Human Righrs Fracrice
Group. The VGSO is in a unique posirion ro
advise governmenr deparrmenrs and srarurory
aurhoriries on rhe applicarion and implicarions of
rhe Charrer ro rheir operarional pracrices.

For furrher informarion or legal advice on any
issues raised in rhis nevslerrer conracr:
Ully Merkel Ully Merkel Ully Merkel Ully Merkel on 8684 0497
Senior Soliciror
James Ruddle James Ruddle James Ruddle James Ruddle on 8684 0470
Depury Vicrorian Governmenr Soliciror
Jo Jo Jo John Cain hn Cain hn Cain hn Cain on 8684 0400
Vicrorian Governmenr Soliciror

The VGSO is rhe primary source of legal services
ro rhe Vicrorian srare governmenr and irs
srarurory aurhoriries, providing srraregic advice
and pracrical legal solurions.


Fage 6


1
Personal information is defined by the IP Act as any information or an opinion that is recorded in any form about
an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion. The
definition includes information such as a persons name and address, or their photograph.
2
Section 13(b) of the Charter provides: A person has the right (b) not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.
The right will be discussed in a subsequent newsletter.
3
Territorial and locational privacy is currently protected by the operation of the SD Act and information privacy is
currently protected by the IP Act and the HR Act.
4
(453/1991), ICCPR, A/50/40 vol II (31 October 1994) UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/453/1991) [10.2].
5
Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 [61]; see comments in passing in R (on the application of Countryside
Alliance) v Attorney-General [2006] EWCA Civ 817.
6
Refer to our comments in footnote 2.
7
General Comment No 16: The right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour
and reputation (Art 17): 08/04/88, CCPR General Comment No 16 (General Comments) thirty-second session, 1988,
[5].
8
Communication No 930/2000, CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000 (2001).
9
Communication No 1069/2002, CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002 (2003).
10
Communication No 1011/2001, CCPR/C/81/D/1011/2001 (2004).
11
CCPR General Comment No 16 (General Comments), above n 7.
12
Human Rights Commission, The Right to Privacy and Reputation, ACT Government fact sheet, 6 available at
<http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/humanrightsfactsheet.pdf>. See also Alex Conte, Privacy, Honour and
Reputation in Alex Conte, Scott Davidson and Richard Burchill (eds), Defining Civil and Political Rights: the
Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (2004) 145, 156. Also note that the protection of private
life under the European Convention on Human Rights extends to activities of a professional or business nature, as per
the Strasbourg Court in Niemietz v Germany (1993) 16 ECtHR 97 [29].
13
CCPR General Comment No 16 (General Comments), above n 7, [8].
14
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, s 7.
15
Refer to s 2 of the Charter and the Explanatory Memorandum, Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill,
16/6/2006, 2.