1 Feb 2007, 09:00

A mother enrolled her daughter in a school holiday programme run by a regional sports trust ("the Trust"). When filling out the enrolment form the mother ticked 'No' to the question whether she gave permission for her daughter's name, photo and/or video to be published in programme newsletters or used for publicity.

The local newspaper published a photograph of the daughter and three other children. The photograph named the children and identified them as participants in the holiday programme. It stated where the programme was held. The mother complained that her daughter's privacy had been breached.

Principle 11

This complaint raised issues under principle 11 of the Privacy Act. This principle provides in part that an agency that holds personal information about an individual shall not disclose that information unless the agency believes, on reasonable grounds, that one of the exceptions to principle 11 applies.

The Trust did not seek to rely on any of the exceptions to principle 11 and in my view none of those exceptions applied. Accordingly, I found that the Trust had breached principle 11 by publishing the daughter's photograph.

Harm

In order to find an interference with privacy, I must be satisfied that there has been a breach of a privacy principle and the breach has caused the individual some harm, loss or detriment as set out in section 66 of the Act.

The mother advised me that she and her daughter had in the past been harassed by the mother's former partner. She had contacted Police who had advised the mother that no information should be disclosed to the former partner that would enable him to have access to the family. She provided documentation from the Police that clearly illustrated the need for caution.

The daughter also wrote to me and advised that, since her photograph had been published, she no longer felt safe.

I was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the daughter had suffered harm of the type and extent required by section 66. In particular, it was clear that the publication of the daughter's name, photograph and location could adversely affect her interests given the safety concerns.

For these reasons I formed the opinion that the daughter had suffered an interference with her privacy.

Settlement

The Trust apologised for the inadvertent disclosure of the girl's personal information and expressed genuine regret at what had happened. The Trust also put new procedures in place to prevent any recurrence of this situation.

During the course of our investigation the mother suggested that $500 in compensation for her daughter would provide a satisfactory resolution to the complaint. The Trust advised that, as it was a non-profit organisation, it was unable to pay this amount of compensation.

I asked the Trust and the mother to consider other ways in which the complaint might be resolved.

The Trust offered the daughter a 12-month gym membership to one of its facilities. However, the mother did not find this proposal acceptable.

Where I believe there is an interference with privacy, I encourage the parties to settle the matter. If they cannot do so, I have a discretion to refer the matter to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, who decides whether to bring proceedings to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

While the mother's request for compensation was modest, the Trust was not in fact in a position to pay. It had made another offer of settlement, of equivalent value, in good faith. Also it was undesirable in the circumstances to subject the daughter to Tribunal proceedings.

Taking everything into consideration, I exercised my discretion not to refer the complaint to the Director. However, I advised the mother of her right to take proceedings if she wished.

June 2007

Disclosure of personal information - Non-profit organisation - School holiday programme - Prohibition on publication of name or photograph - Daughter identified in newspaper - Interference with privacy - No referral to Director of Human Rights Proceedings - principle 11