V lenah game meats

In all cases, the fact that the information was improperly obtained should weigh heavily against allowing the information to be used.

The onus of showing that the publication is in the public interest should rest on the person seeking to publish the improperly obtained information. Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers[20] examined the reasons of history and policy that explain why enforcement of the criminal law by civil injunction at the suit of a private litigant is an exceptional and narrowly confined jurisdiction. I believe the same applies to material obtained in that way which is gratuitously humiliating rather than confidential On 4 May, Cox CJ had refused an interlocutory injunction in aid of what was then the pending appeal by Lenah[35].

After that decision by the Chief Justice and before the hearing of the appeal, the ABC had televised segments of the video tape in question. That is not surprising. The Tasmanian legislature enacted the Supreme Court Actwith the expressed objective of adopting the system established in England by the Judicature Act[51]. Equally, courts of equity will not always grant injunctions against a party profiting from an illegal activity of some other person.

That, too, is a "wide generalisation" which provides an insufficient basis for identifying whether relevant equitable principles are engaged. That remedy frequently, as in Cigna itself, will be interlocutory but will have the practical effect of deciding the dispute as to the forum of the trial.

However, as is recognised in this passage, there will be cases in which the equitable jurisdiction is exercised in aid of legal rights asserted by the plaintiff. In the joint judgment in Cigna, the majority said[73]:. Young J added that, on a prima facie basis, an injunction should seriously be considered where a film was taken by a trespasser upon private premises and there is some evidence that publication of the film would affect goodwill[91].

Otherwise, the court would be powerless to restrain a defendant who had "obtained the fruits of his tort without holding money or property of the plaintiff and without a breach of confidentiality"[92].

Although in Lincoln Hunt, in the event, damages were considered an adequate remedy, Young J's remarks have been treated in later cases[93] as supporting orders enjoining the publication by the defendant of films it made or caused to be made in the course of trespass upon the premises of the plaintiff. Lincoln Hunt has been said "through the medium of unconscionability, [to open] a new possibility of restraining the publication of materials obtained by trespassers"[94].

The Privacy Act Cth , particularly since its amendment by the Privacy Amendment Private Sector Act Cth , confers some enforcement power upon the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, but the legislation stops short of enacting what might be called a statutory tort of privacy invasion.

Lenah suggested in its submissions that to date the Australian courts most probably had not developed "an enforceable right to privacy" because of what generally was taken to follow from the failure of the plaintiff's appeal in Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor[].

What a concept of privacy does, however, is accord recognition to the fact that the law has to protect not only those people whose trust has been abused but those who simply find themselves subjected to an unwanted intrusion into their personal lives. The law no longer needs to construct an artificial relationship of confidentiality between intruder and victim: it can recognise privacy itself as a legal principle drawn from the fundamental value of personal autonomy.

This suggested that, for the frustration of that commercial transaction, a money remedy would be sufficient. The law protects these expectations too - and when they collide with expectations of privacy, privacy almost always loses. Privacy law in the United States delivers far less than it promises, because it resolves virtually all these conflicts in favour of information, candour, and free speech. The sweeping language of privacy law serves largely to mask the fact that the law provides almost no protection against privacy-invading disclosures.

As we shall see later, the law is more successful in protecting against commercial exploitation, although for reasons that have more to do with commerce than privacy. With that warning in mind, it is convenient to turn to consider the position in the United States, which has been treated as the fount of privacy jurisprudence.

The Section then continues that this right to privacy is invaded in each of the four ways detailed in Sections BE. The first is identified as "Intrusion upon Seclusion" and is described:. A celebrated example of this is the discovery in Griswold v Connecticut[] of "the zone of privacy" located in the penumbras of specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps more conventionally, in a number of cases the prohibition imposed by the Fourth Amendment applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment upon unreasonable searches and seizures of property has been interpreted by reference to a reasonable expectation of privacy[]. In par c of the Comment to that Section, the Reporters observe that a corporation has no cause of action for any of the four forms of invasion specified in Section A.

They continue:. The law does not assist landowners here either. What about filming from drones? The old law was if you owned the land, you owned the sky. This is no longer the case.

But surely there must be a remedy for farmers whose personal details, such as names, addresses and maps of their properties, can be found online? Well, no, not unless the farmer can establish, under defamation law, he or she suffers an injury to their character by that publication. The test is: does that website, in naming people who it asserts may be cruel to animals, hold them up for contempt or ridicule, and harm their reputation in the eyes of right-minded observers?

Read more: Penalties for animal cruelty double in SA, but is this enough to stop animal abuse? And if there was clear evidence of cruelty, the activists have a defence against a claim for defamation because what they were saying was true. One would hope a constructive dialogue will emerge out of this that will usher in a world of best-practice farming.

This should improve the live animal export business, which remains perpetually under a cloud. To be successful, such debate often requires media attention. Improvements in the condition of circus animals, in the transport of live sheep for export and in the condition of battery hens followed such community debate.

Furthermore, antivivisection and vegetarian groups are entitled, in our representative democracy, to promote their causes, enlisting media coverage, including by the appellant. The form of government created by the Constitution is not confined to debates about popular or congenial topics, reflecting majority or party wisdom.

Experience teaches that such topics change over time. In part, they do so because of general discussion in the mass media. For academics, advocates, teachers and students, animal lovers, animal lawyers and everyone in between! Sign up below for the latest in animal law, animal protection education and any other Voiceless related tidbits. Thank you for providing your email. This allows us to record the number of downloads per resource, and determine its relative reach.

Want to receive all the latest Voiceless news plus a discount code for something special? By filling out this form you agree that you are joining Voiceless's mailing list in accordance with our privacy policy. Ibid n 1,