Animal Welfare and Australian Democracy

This assignment examines the relationship between animal welfare, public debate, and Australian democracy. It analyzes how representative democracy operates in addressing animal welfare concerns, highlighting the influence of community groups, media coverage, and political pressure on policy development. The study also considers legal aspects related to animal welfare and the potential for improvement through ongoing discourse.

CASE NOTE ON ABC V LENAH GAME MEATS PTY LTD
[2001] HCA 63
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Tort law............................................................................................................................................3
Case of ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63..........................................................4
Judicial reasoning in the case..........................................................................................................5
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
References......................................................................................................................................10
2

INTRODUCTION
Tort is a legal term that describes the violation of one person’s duty in an agreement. The
violation may occur in the form of damage, injury and harm to another person entered in the
contract. The present research study has been made on case of ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty
Ltd [2001] HCA 63 and in the study discussion has also been included about judicial reasoning
presented in the case. Specifying about the case, it can be said that the respondent was successful
in acquiring an injection against the plaintiffs through publishing a film which displays possums
that is being astounded at a yard.
TORT LAW
Tort is an action that is committed from intentional actions and it is also considered as a
breach of duty in negligence. Thus, most often it is regarded as violation of statutes. According
to the general terms, the party that commits the tort is known as tortfeasor which incurs tort
liability and that also means that the party has to reimburse all the losses and injuries which are
caused by them. In other words the tortfeasor is also considered as liable when for another
person’s injuries; hence the amount of damages is required to be paid accordingly1. Therefore, it
is clear that tort liability is the situation that involves many factors; hence tortfeasor may become
liable to varied victims if causing injury to any person or group. At the same time, victim can
also incur the liability through contributing to their own injury by segregating the actions of
tortfeasor2.
Typically, an intentional tort is known as a civil wrong activity that occurs especially at
the time when the party intentionally occurs in the act of tort. This may also be called as a
negligent act wherein careless action results in damage to another party. Generally, liability
1 Stewart, Daniel. "Protecting Privacy, Property, and Possums: Australian Broadcasting
Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats Pty. Ltd." Fed. L. Rev. 30 (2002): 177.
2 Pelletier, Robert. "A new tort of privacy: we should be able to sue." Law Society
Journal: the official journal of the Law Society of New South Wales 46, no. 11 (2008):
58.
3

arises in tort when the defendant intends to cause harm to the plaintiff3. This brings the defendant
into negligence. Tortfeasor possess the duty to act or behave in appropriate manner so that all the
liabilities may get fulfilled. Herein, plaintiff is also required to prove that the behaviour of the
tortfeasor caused loss or damage. This should be certainly accepted under the act of negligence.
The punishment of tortious act usually comprises restoring the injured party through giving
monetary and non-monetary benefits. Besides this, sometimes a court may also force the
tortfeasor to act accordingly the legal aspects.
CASE OF ABC V LENAH GAME MEATS PTY LTD [2001] HCA 63
In November 2001, Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd desired an injunction from the high court
for the purpose of restraining the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This was actually
conducted to get the footage of meat production process as on the basis of that footage lawful
action will be determined4. The case has generated questions regarding legal aspects that are
required to be managed in publishing materials. It has also identified the extent to which media
outlets are restrained from publishing. It also depicts that there was no illegality conducted from
media outlet.
Facts of the case states that Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd has operated a possum meat
processing plant in Tasmania. Unknown individual without informing entered Lena’s premises
and also installed hidden cameras without getting consent from Lenah. The camera was basically
installed for the purpose of getting footage about the possum slaughter process5. Later on, the
footage was supplied to Animal Liberation Ltd and then afterwards it got passed to ABC.
3 Pearson, Mark, and Camille Galvin. "The Australian Parliament and press freedom in an
international context." Pacific Journalism Review 13, no. 2 (2007): 139.
4 Pelletier, Robert. "A new tort of privacy: we should be able to sue." Law Society
Journal: the official journal of the Law Society of New South Wales 46, no. 11 (2008):
58.
5 Case, Lenah Game Meats. "Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats
Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63 (15 November 2001). Online." (2003).
4

When Lenah came to know about ABC’s plan to broadcast the footage, Lenah decided to
bring an action to restrain the broadcast. However, in this case, ABC was not involved in the
unlawful installation of the surveillance equipment (camera)6. Afterwards, filling application to
the court, ABC came to know that the footage had been acquired through unlawful ways. During
that time, Lenah argued that publication of the firm would definitely causes financial harm to the
business. Lenah also contended that the footage has some horrible things; therefore it might
affect the public. At the same time, it can also bring anger in people while watching the
processing operation.
In this context, Lenah made three major allegations, first is the breach of confidentiality
that is made by the broadcasting by taking unlawful footage. Second is the unconscionability
wherein the material had been acquired from illegal way. Therefore, as a result the court shall be
restrained to publish or broadcast this material7. Third matter of concern is Lenah’s privacy. It is
also added that the publication of such material will enhance monetary losses to the business
entity. In this respect, ABC articulated that Lenah had no cause of action against the publication
because there is no principle in Australian law which justifies an order that can prevent the party
from publication of any material. At the same time, it does not show any consideration regarding
the way through which material is acquired8.
JUDICIAL REASONING IN THE CASE
At the time of conducting the case, the majority of the high court was in favour of ABC;
hence they have rejected Lenah’s argument in this. Therefore, in this case interlocutory relief
6 Pearson, Mark. "The privacy mandala: Towards a newsroom checklist for ethical
decisions." (2005).
7 Pearson, Mark. "Police digital communications and the media." Humanities & Social
Sciences papers (2005): 73.
8 Pelletier, Robert. "A new tort of privacy: we should be able to sue." Law Society
Journal: the official journal of the Law Society of New South Wales 46, no. 11 (2008):
58.
5

was not available to Lenah. While focusing on the aspect of confidentiality, Gleeson CJ (one of
the judges in this case) held that filming activities on private property does not make the activity
a private act and it can be published or broadcasted if it has some element of unlawful things9.
The activities were not private in any context; merely it was conducted in a private property. In
this respect, the judge focused on ABC’s conscession and they held that the information
collected about the slaughtering process was not confidential. However, instead of that because
of a licensed public authority, Lenah could not get success in claiming against breach of
confidence. Therefore, it can be said that Lenah’s claim for preventing the publishing did not get
approve; hence she could claim for any illegal concept.
Another point is about unconscionability and majority of high court stated that the
footage was obtained through improper sources. However, while making this argument, Chief
justice Gleeson got referral to United States’ case law. After that, a joint judgement has been
taken by Gummow and Hayne JJ who found that no party possess the power to issue an order
without underlying the cause of action10. Therefore, in this context it is unconscionable for Lenah
to prevent the publication of the material. Both the judges held it inequitable for the maker of the
film to declare ownership of the copyright against Lenah. This shall be done before getting the
material published. However, this is not the issue in the present case as the film is not published
by ABC.
In this case, the trespassers’ act of trespass could be applied due to the wrongdoing and
also due to inappropriate use of the video. The judge also stated that there is no statutory
provision applicable in the case and it also does not authorizes the grant of an order. This also
restrains the film industry to publish the recording11. In this respect, it can be said that ABC
9 Lindsay, David. "Playing Possum? Privacy, Freedom of Speech and the Media
Following ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd, Part II." Media and Arts Law Review 7,
no. 3 (2002): 161.
10 Pearson, Mark, and Camille Galvin. "The Australian Parliament and press freedom in an
international context." Pacific Journalism Review 13, no. 2 (2007): 139.
11 Lindsay, David F. "Playing Possum? Privacy, Freedom of Speech and the Media
Following ABC V Lenah Game Meats; Part 1: The Availability of an Interlocutory
6

obtained material in that situation where the material was illegally placed. The judge also noted
that legal right cannot be invaded because of wrong doings. This is also applicable in the
publication of material determined by ABC. Hence, in this context it is clear that no legal remedy
is available to Lenah in this situation.
Stating about the privacy aspects, the example of Victoria Park Racing and Recreation
Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor could be considered which defines the breach of privacy in diverse
cases. However, this cause does not present in the privacy law of Australia. Law states that
individual privacy can be defended by referring to other laws12. This could be related to
defamation, nuisance and trespass. However, in Australia general right of privacy does not exist.
In this case, high court depicted that the right of privacy could be recognised in the case when it
is amenable. But, at the same time in the case of Victoria Park, the decision did not held out as
per the law. Hence, the judge took some time to address the issue which also indicates that the
cause of action may be a possibility.
Additionally, in this respect four judges states that there could be a new action for the
invasion of privacy which was developed in Australian law. Such law is required to be confined
according to the privacy needs of a person or any company. In this respect, the judge also
contended that the limitation is based on the fact that law is typically designed for the purpose of
protecting human dignity13. Absence of such thing becomes less relevant at the time when it
deals with the private aspects of the organization. Along with the same, focus has also been laid
on freedom of political communication and animal welfare. Therefore, it also includes
Injunction to Prevent Publication."
12 v Taylor, Recreation Grounds Co Ltd. "Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co
Ltd v Taylor."
13 Heath, William M. "Possum Processing, Picture Pilfering, Publication and Privacy:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats Pty. Ltd." Monash UL
Rev. 28 (2002): 162.
7

importance of animal protection movement. Hence, Kirby J acknowledged that animal welfare
issues are matter of public debate.
Stating about judiciary reasoning present in the case, it can be said that tort usually arises
when Australian law recognizes a tort of invasion of privacy and at the same time, it does not
include the right to privacy that is attached to corporations. This must be relevant to implied
freedom which is associated with political communication and that also uses all the provisions
determined under the constitution to the tort of privacy. Therefore, the decision was not
considered as common in its reasoning as it was based on a constitutional argument which
defines the effect of government and political issues of animal welfare14. Therefore, this has also
led to the practice of discretion which also grants the interlocutory injunction. At the same time,
it also includes provision related to injunction that which is specified by an authorized statue. It
is also important as a curial remedy which defines right and wrong aspects. Thus, it simply
denotes that the function of court which is to do justice as defined by the law.
As per the case, Australian law includes interlocutory injunction which also requires
several principles that needs to be applied for plaintiff. This is also useful for the purpose of
showing defence wherein plaintiff holds no equity. This also focuses on nature of discretion
which grant interlocutory relief. On the basis of Australian perspective, torts are not defined
within specific statute or legislation which also involves judge- made law or common law.
However, on the other hand each of the state is entitled in overriding the common law so that to
develop the area of negligence, personal injuries and defamation15. Therefore, it can be said that
Australian law is greatly influenced by principles of UK which defines the virtue of Australia’s
legal dimensions.
14 Case, Lenah Game Meats. "Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats
Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63 (15 November 2001). Online." (2003).
15 Adrian, Angela. "How much privacy do clouds provide? An Australian
perspective." Computer Law & Security Review 29, no. 1 (2013): 48-57.
8

CONCLUSION
In this area, it is also noted that when government and political character are fixed, it
should show limited concerns. Therefore, it depicts the operation of representative democracy
which is appropriately fixed by the constitution. Under such democracy, it is crucial to consider
the interest of animal welfare especially when it is concerned with public debate matters. While
managing such thing, emphasis is ought to be laid on legal aspects. Media is also required to give
proper attention in this respect so that areas of improvements can be ascertained accordingly.
There must be suitable consideration regarding export of animals and all animal products.
Conducting public debate helps in generating many advances in animal welfare and
usually it is developed through having political pressure. From the study, it is also ascertained
that parliamentary democracies of Australia are effective in operating and promoting community
groups. From the study, it can be depicted that representative democracy needs to promote their
causes while enlisting media coverage and this also requires including the interest of appellant.
This form has been created by government construction which is not only restricted to debates
about populous topics. However, at the same time it also reflects majority of party wisdom that
changes the way of handling the circumstances.
9

REFERENCES
Adrian, Angela. "How much privacy do clouds provide? An Australian perspective." Computer
Law & Security Review 29, no. 1 (2013): 48-57.
Case, Lenah Game Meats. "Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd
[2001] HCA 63 (15 November 2001). Online." (2003).
Heath, William M. "Possum Processing, Picture Pilfering, Publication and Privacy: Australian
Broadcasting Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats Pty. Ltd." Monash UL Rev. 28 (2002):
162.
Lindsay, David F. "Playing Possum? Privacy, Freedom of Speech and the Media Following ABC
V Lenah Game Meats; Part 1: The Availability of an Interlocutory Injunction to Prevent
Publication."
Lindsay, David. "Playing Possum? Privacy, Freedom of Speech and the Media Following ABC v
Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd, Part II." Media and Arts Law Review 7, no. 3 (2002): 161.
Pearson, Mark, and Camille Galvin. "The Australian Parliament and press freedom in an
international context." Pacific Journalism Review 13, no. 2 (2007): 139.
Pearson, Mark. "Police digital communications and the media." Humanities & Social Sciences
papers (2005): 73.
Pearson, Mark. "The privacy mandala: Towards a newsroom checklist for ethical decisions."
(2005).
Pelletier, Robert. "A new tort of privacy: we should be able to sue." Law Society Journal: the
official journal of the Law Society of New South Wales 46, no. 11 (2008): 58.
Stewart, Daniel. "Protecting Privacy, Property, and Possums: Australian Broadcasting
Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats Pty. Ltd." Fed. L. Rev. 30 (2002): 177.
v Taylor, Recreation Grounds Co Ltd. "Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v
Taylor."
10