Law Reform Commission Surveillance Report

“The QCCL welcomes the Queensland Law Reform Commission Report released yesterday 29 June 2020 into the laws regulating private use of surveillance devices in Queensland, but does have some concerns” says QCCL President Mr Cope

We welcome the announcement of the Queensland government that it will implement the recommendations of the Commission, which will produce the most up-to-date surveillance device regulations in the country.

Surveillance devices will include listening devices, cameras, trackers and devices that monitor computers

In broad terms, the use of surveillance devices without the consent of the person the subject of the surveillance will be prohibited.

There will be exceptions where the use of the device is necessary to protect the lawful interests of a person, is necessary in the public interest, there is a serious threat to the life health or safety of a person and the use of the device is otherwise authorised by law.

It will be illegal to communicate information obtained from a device except with the subject’s consent, for the purpose of legal proceedings, to protect the lawful interests of a person, is necessary in the public interest, there is a serious threat to the life health or safety of a person and the use of the device is otherwise authorised by law

There will be criminal penalties for the breach of these provisions.

In addition, a right will be created which will enable a person to seek compensation where a surveillance device is used in a way that interferes with an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy and they have not consented to the use of the device.

“However, the report does have some gaps,” says Mr Cope

“Firstly, it does not provide a specific exemption for journalism. The Commission says that journalists should be the subject of the same laws as everybody else. It is our opinion that given their fundamental role in our democracy a specific exception for the work of journalists should have been developed by the Commission.”

“Secondly, the Council maintains its position that the State government should pass a law providing for a statutory cause of action for damages for serious breaches of privacy as has been recommended by a number of Law Reform Commissions in this country. This would fill any gaps in the law and it would be flexible enough to cover new technologies.”