Law(PR): Examining Privacy Rights in the New Matilda Case Publication

This case study examines the legal implications of the New Matilda publication of Barry Spurr's emails, focusing on privacy law. The central legal issue revolves around the breach of privacy and confidentiality, considering whether the publication of personal emails constitutes an infringement. The analysis explores the enforceability of privacy rights in Australia, referencing key laws such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). It highlights the absence of a defined tort of privacy invasion in Australian law and weighs the public interest against individual privacy rights. The study concludes that Spurr's claim of privacy breach is contestable due to the derogatory nature of the emails and the overriding public interest. Recommendations include strengthening privacy laws to prevent misuse and ensure justice for those affected by confidentiality breaches. Desklib offers more solved assignments and past papers for students.

PUBLIC
RELATIONS
LAW
B A R R Y S P U R R V N E W M A T I L D A

FACTS OF THE CASE
• Publication made by New Matilda in their website pertaining to certain sexist racist
comments made via email by the professor of the Sydney University namely Barry
Spurr.
• This racist and whimsical emails forwarded by the professor has been published by the
news website new Matilda.
• Being dragged to the Federal Court by the professor, the publication of such emails in
future has been barred, but there were no agreements that evidence the removal of
the already published emails.
• The publication of any such material in the future has been prohibited but as a result
of structure buzz within the media regarding the derogatory comments of the
professor he has been suspended from the university for the time being

LEGAL ISSUE
• The first legal issue on which the professor has based his case upon is the
breach of privacy and confidentiality.
• The tort of privacy has the chance of claiming enforceability in this case.
• The publication of his personal emails is a breach of confidentiality and can
be viewed as an exploitation of his privacy.
• The publication of such information and emails that has been personal to
him poses contravention of the laws relating to copyright

LEGAL ISSUE
• The tort of privacy is not enforceable within the precincts of Australia.
Moreover the defendants added that all the laws that lead to the privacy
and confidentiality has been lying in a suggestive and recommendation
based form.
• There is no hard and fast rule in Australia regarding the privacy and
confidentiality pertaining to individuals.
• Where the public interest and right to privacy comes in the way of each
other more weight age is required to be extended towards public interest
over the right of privacy.

KEY LAWS
• There has been no definition or laws relating to the infringement of privacy in
Australia that has been recognised by the laws prevailing in Australia.
• Australia has been a signatory in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which under Article 17 protects a person from being infringed upon with
respect to his privacy, correspondences as well as reputation. The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), art. 17
• However, it can
• The existence of the tort of invasion relating to privacy is not recognised under the
laws pertaining to Australia. This has been made evident in the case of Hosking v
Runting [2004] NZCA 34 be enforced with respect to certain aspects only.

KEY LAWS
• the claim of right to privacy and the enforceability of the same is the
identification of the limit beyond which the right to privacy is to be
extended to an individual as has been evolved with the case of Victoria Park
Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor [1937] HCA 45.
• in the case of Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats
[2001] 208 CLF 199 that the publishing of an information that is readily
accessible cannot be treated as an exploitation of the privacy of a
corporations.

KEY LAWS
• The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) is a legislation that exist in the territory of
Australia that ensures the right of privacy to be extended to certain
individuals. The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
• The breach of the Act may result into an investigation being carried out by
the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), which may
result into apologies, damages, civil penalties as well as other forms of
rectifying activity as the OAIC deems fit

APPLICATION OF THE LAWS
• that tort of invasion towards the privacy is not recognised and accordingly
not actionable.
• Barry has made a claim of tort of privacy, which does not have any legal
standing and has not specific enforceability
• there are certain legislations and treaties that supports the contention, for
instance the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , which
under Article 17 protects a person from being infringed upon with respect to
his privacy as well as the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) , but the enforceability of
the same is questionable.

APPLICATION OF THE LAWS
• the emails that has been forwarded by Barry has been derogatory and
offensive towards the community and poses a serious threat towards the
public interest.
• the public interest in this case is outweighing the right to privacy and hence
nullifies the right to privacy

CONCLUSION
• the publication of the emails by the New Matilda cannot be enforced by
Barry with a right to privacy as the same has been derogatory and has been
itself wrongful.
• the laws relating to the right to privacy is weak in Australia.

RECOMMENDATIONS
• The laws needs to be more reformed and the suggestive and
recommendation based laws needs to be given rock solid legislative form.
• Publication of personal information if not controlled at this stage might lead
to a serious breach and hence needs to be subjected to reform.
• In one way it will prevent the persons like Barry from misusing the right to
privacy and on the other way, it will extend justice towards the subjects
who are a serious sufferers of the breach of confidentiality.