Daily Telegraph / Adam Elliott legal Discussion Thread

[The DoggFather]

Yeah I get that they are dodgy pricks and I personally think it's the biggest bullshit storm in a teacup but I still dont think it matters where they took the image from, it was outside the pub and this law wouldn't apply. Same as it wouldn't apply if you have sex in a park or on a balcony or at the beach and it is recorded by someone. The images are extremely intimate, sexual, but by choosing the location you cant expect privacy.. a photo of a stripper in a club wouldn't meet this either

So I can video tape a couple having sex in a park and sell it to a porn site and that's legal?

PS sorry if I misunderstood your post.

 

[dogwhisperer]

I don’t think the balcony of a pub would be private place. If he was in the bathroom or inside someone’s house then there might be a case.

But what if the balcony is three stories high where by standers can’t see unless they stand on a cherry picker across the road and use a professional zoom in camera

 

[Spoonman84]

But what if the balcony is three stories high where by standers can’t see unless they stand on a cherry picker across the road and use a professional zoom in camera

It wouldn’t matter if the balcony was 100 stories high it’s a public place.

 

[Bob dog]

You can try and say it was a private function but the cops are threatening to charge Elliot so don't expect their help.
Did any other NRL club get stalked?

 

[The DoggFather]

You can try and say it was a private function but the cops are threatening to charge Elliot so don't expect their help.
Did any other NRL club get stalked?

Got a link to this threat against Elliott?

All that has been said is that the venue and it's management will be investigated.

 

[Docta]

It wouldn’t matter if the balcony was 100 stories high it’s a public place.

It’s not as black and white as you put it mate and I’m not sure where the relevance of ‘public place’ comes in. The legislation stipulates ‘a reasonable person’ (the magistrate) would reasonably be expected to be afforded privacy.

As I said it depends on a number of things but if the reports are true and it was a private function (therefore not open to members of the public) and he was seen by a journalist who obtained access to an area not ordinarily available to the other people using tools not ordinarily used by members of the public (cameras designed to capture images at distance) then arguably he would have expects to have been afforded privacy.

I agree it’s not clear cut and I have not studied case law surrounding the above point (there wouldnt be much I imagine given the legislation is fairly new), however this a matter for debate in a courtroom. At the very least there is a prima facie case which is all you need for a prosecution by police.

 

[BELMORE]

Where’s that bloke that’s a lawyer?

 

[Doomsdaydog]

Where’s that bloke that’s a lawyer?

Pumping iron with Des at a gym on the Northern beaches

 

[dekepefc]

So I can video tape a couple having sex in a park and sell it to a porn site and that's legal?

PS sorry if I misunderstood your post.

Yes you can

 

[tyl0r]

Its Elliots fault if he misses TPAs as a result of this. There is no doubt the photographer and news companies are scumbags for reporting this, but Elliot should have known better. Even though it was a private function room, it could be argued that it is still a public place, being open to and accessible by the public.

 

[Heckler]

What is the legal definition of a public space including boundaries on a private property whether in view or not?

 

[Novocastrian]

Was it roof top bar at the glenmore?

 

[The DoggFather]

Yes you can

Wow, lucky I'm not a scumbag like journos are...

So perves can take upskirts in public and that's ok too?

 

[The DoggFather]

It’s not as black and white as you put it mate and I’m not sure where the relevance of ‘public place’ comes in. The legislation stipulates ‘a reasonable person’ (the magistrate) would reasonably be expected to be afforded privacy.

As I said it depends on a number of things but if the reports are true and it was a private function (therefore not open to members of the public) and he was seen by a journalist who obtained access to an area not ordinarily available to the other people using tools not ordinarily used by members of the public (cameras designed to capture images at distance) then arguably he would have expects to have been afforded privacy.

I agree it’s not clear cut and I have not studied case law surrounding the above point (there wouldnt be much I imagine given the legislation is fairly new), however this a matter for debate in a courtroom. At the very least there is a prima facie case which is all you need for a prosecution by police.

Are you a Lawya, Docta? Sounds like you know your stuff.

 

[Docta]

Its Elliots fault if he misses TPAs as a result of this. There is no doubt the photographer and news companies are scumbags for reporting this, but Elliot should have known better. Even though it was a private function room, it could be argued that it is still a public place, being open to and accessible by the public.

The definition of ‘open to and accessible by the public’ is only relevant to the definition of a ‘public place’ within the meaning of the summary offences act. Even then I would have to respectfully disagree and say it was a private function and therefore was not open to the public at that time.

However, if you are referring to public place in the context of this thread, then the legislation does not talk about public place, rather ‘the circumstances upon which a reasonable person would reasonably be expected to be affoarded privacy’.

 

[Como Dog]

I'm also thinking that irrespective of it being a public place or not, if a sad journalist spots Elliott naked on a balcony then his next course of action is to call the police and report the incident. By taking photos, distributing them for broadcast and publication and identifying him, surely this places the journalist/photographer in jeopardy of being charged. It's not like we're talking about former partners here where photos were taken in a private place together.

 

[Como Dog]

BTW if there is grounds here, does anyone know if police have to investigate this if a complaint is made by a member of the public?

 

[Nasheed]

lol it wasnt revenge porn.

Revenge porn is the photo's i uploaded onto myex.com of former one night stand ho's.
Not Adam Elliott getting pissed in a pub.

 

[koulakat]

Here's a story, the relevance of which should become clear.
Woke up morning after attending a non-public function because of noises outside, found pictures of me from the paper taped to my door. All the other pictures related to the article had names attached, mine didn't - photographer felt like asking everyone else, but not me.
Called up NewsCorp and pointed out it was not an open-entry function, that my permission had not been granted for publication, and that I was being harassed and at risk of harm as a result of my image being used (particularly as at the time I was on the run from a deranged ex). They pulled the photographer out of a meeting and he said 'it's a public place, so by being there you gave permission, gotta go' and wouldn't listen. However, my picture was pulled from the digital version and not offered on that site where you can buy 'selected' pictures from the papers.

Based on my experience, I suspect NewsCorp have a standing instruction to play fast and loose with expectation of privacy - and believe that being in a place that is public (a pub is, by definition, public, even when there are measures taken to prevent access to some parts such as security and ticketing) is enough to counter a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Similarly, the relayed events of 2012's Mad Monday would demonstrate that privacy at club events is not a given, and the general admonitions on Mad Monday behaviour would indicate that the NRL doesn't believe privacy at club events is a given... and all we need is for a NewsCorp lawyer to argue public interest before the DPP declines to prosecute. Whether it's a public place goes to whether a reasonable expectation of privacy can exist, and goodness knows there's enough out there about how NRL players are role models and how famous people are less entitled to privacy etc. that they can fall back on too.

Not to mention that each player would have to pursue their cases individually, and the amount of stress that would place on them for the next 1-2 years.

 

[Alan79]

Having looked at this in a couple of threads. I wonder if the media used a drone to capture these images and if it's legal to take photos with a drone in situations like this. I was under the impression that camera drones weren't supposed to be operated in built up areas anymore. Club needs to investigate this.