VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
human rights DIVISION
HUMan rights LIST	
vcat reference No. H185/2022	
CATCHWORDS	
Human Rights List – Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic), claims of breach of Information Privacy Principles 2.1 and 4.1.	

COMPLAINANT	Sharon Zammit	
RESPONDENT 	Racing Victoria	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne 	
BEFORE	Member C. Thwaites	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	2 February 2024	
DATE OF ORDER AND WRITTTEN REASONS	23 February 2024	
CITATION	Zammit v Racing Victoria (Human Rights) [2024] VCAT 163	

OrderS
1	The complaint referred to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal by the Information Commissioner under section 66(4) of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic) is not proven and the complaint is dismissed.

C. Thwaites
Member			

APPEARANCES:		
For complainant	In person	
For respondent	M. Olynyk, solicitor
S. Foletti, solicitor	

Reasons
1	Ms Sharon Zammit made a complaint to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner alleging Racing Victoria had breached a number of Information Privacy Principles under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic) (‘PDP Act’).
2	The Information Commissioner referred the complaint to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) under section 66(4) of the PDP Act.
3	In an order dated 11 July 2023 Senior Member Steele stated the particulars of the complaint as follows:
(a)	Allegation 1: The Respondent disclosed to Mr George Osborne the details of the emails the Applicant had sent in 2021 outlining concerns she had with the welfare of horses being trained by Mr Osborne in contravention of Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 2.1 and/or 4.1.
(b)	Allegation 2: The disclosure referred to in Allegation 1 prompted Mr Osborne to contact Victoria Police who subsequently contacted the Respondent and asked to receive copies of the Applicant’s correspondence, which the Respondent then disclosed to Victoria Police, in contravention of IPP 2.1.
4	The parties filed a number of documents, and the hearing was held on 2 February 2024.
5	Ms Zammit attended the hearing in person and gave evidence. Ms Zammit called two witnesses, Mr Tony Riordan and Mr Peter Ryan, who both gave evidence via Zoom and were cross examined. 
6	The respondent called two witnesses, Mr James Hitchcock and Mr Daniel Halbert, who both gave evidence in person and were cross examined. 
7	At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision.
8	During the hearing it became apparent that Ms Zammit had serious concerns about the welfare of horses and about the respondent’s actions in relation to enforcing the rules of racing and ensuring animal welfare. While I appreciate Ms Zammit’s distress about the matters she referred to, the Tribunal is limited to making a decision about her complaint referred to it by the Information Commissioner.
9	Having considered the written material, submissions and contentions filed with the Tribunal, and the oral evidence and submissions made at the hearing I make the following findings.
Allegation 1 
10	Allegation 1: The Respondent disclosed to Mr George Osborne the details of the emails the Applicant had sent in 2021 outlining concerns she had with the welfare of horses being trained by Mr Osborne in contravention of Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 2.1 and/or 4.1.
The complainant
11	In support of this allegation Ms Zammit referred the Tribunal to a written statement of George Osborne. According to the document, the statement was taken and the signature of Mr Osborne was witnessed at 12:40pm on 6 September 2021 at WKYUNI by Senior Constable J Woods.
12	The relevant part of the statement made by Mr Osborne stated:
I have been notified by Peter Ryan the head of Stewarts(sic) Racing Victoria, that Sharon Zammit has been harassing the department with emails complaining about me.
I believe Sharon is breaching the order by emailing Racing Victoria complaining about me.
I have since notified police of the matter.
13	Ms Zammit also referred to a letter from Victoria Police dated 16 December 2021 addressed to the Privacy and Data Protection Deputy Commissioner. The content of the letter indicates it was written in response to questions posed by the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner investigating a privacy complaint made by Ms Zammit against Victoria Police. The letter sets out the history and conditions of an Interim Personal Safety Intervention Order (‘PSIO’) for George Osborne against the Ms Zammit, granted by the Kyneton Magistrates’ Court on 12 April 2021. The letter also stated:
In July 2021, Peter Ryan, head of Stewarts(sic) Racing Victoria, alerted Mr Osborne to emails received by Racing Victoria from Ms Zammit relating to him.
Mr Osborne reported the emails from Ms Zammit to Racing Victoria to Senior Constable Woods at Kyneton police station.
SC Woods commenced an investigation of potential contravention of Interim PSIO.
14	While Ms Zammit’s written statement did not specifically address Allegation 1, it did raise her concerns that the respondent had sought to have her charged as a criminal and had completely ignored her concerns about animal welfare and about Mr Osborne. 
15	Ms Zammit called Mr Tony Riordan and Mr Peter Ryan who gave evidence via Zoom. 
16	During the hearing it became clear that most of the relevant emails from Ms Zammit were initially sent to Racing Australia, who then sent the emails to Racing Victoria.
Mr Riordan
17	Mr Tony Riordan told the Tribunal that he was the Team Leader at the Service Centre for Racing Australia and had worked for Racing Australia for 12 years. He told the Tribunal that emails or complaints about horse statuses would be forwarded to Racing Victoria as it was stewards that check horse statuses are up to date. He told the Tribunal that Racing Australia do not follow up on these emails as that is for the appropriate state to do. He told the Tribunal it was not his role to investigate the issues raised in the emails.
18	On questioning, Mr Riordan did not know if the relevant emails had been sent directly to Peter Ryan. He told the Tribunal that generally emails would be sent to a Racing Victoria stewards group email address, and Peter Ryan was one of the stewards. 
19	Mr Riordan told the Tribunal he had never met Peter Ryan, but they had spoken on the telephone. 
20	On questioning, Mr Riordan told the Tribunal that in April 2019 he was told to send emails from Ms Zammit to Dean Moore at Racing Victoria. He did not know Dean Moore or his role.
21	On further questioning, Mr Riordan told the Tribunal it was not common to get so many emails from one person, and that was why he was directed to send the emails to Dean Moore at Racing Victoria.
22	Under cross examination Mr Riordan told the Tribunal he was not employed by Racing Victoria and had never been employed by Racing Victoria. 
Mr Ryan
23	Mr Peter Ryan told the Tribunal that at the relevant time he was the Regional Manager of Stewards in North/North East Region Victoria and had worked for Racing Victoria for 20 years. He has since moved to a position in Racing South Australia.  
24	On questioning, Mr Ryan told the Tribunal he did not have a relationship with Mr Osborne outside racing. He had a stock standard steward/trainer relationship with Mr Osborne. While he did not recall the exact emails which were the subject of the complaint, Mr Ryan told the Tribunal if the emails raised concerns about horse statuses or stable returns, Racing Australia would normally send such emails onto Racing Victoria. He would see those emails and undertake stable inspections. He recalled he had undertaken stable inspections with Mr Osbourne and that Mr Osborne had incurred fines in the past.
25	Mr Ryan was referred to the written statement of Mr Osborne which stated that Mr Osborne had been notified by Peter Ryan that Sharon Zammit had been harassing the department with emails complaining about Mr Osborne.
26	In response Mr Ryan told the Tribunal he did not disclose any emails to Mr Osborne. He told the Tribunal that he can’t answer for Mr Osborne, and that they were Mr Osborne’s words not his. He told the Tribunal Mr Osborne was aware of complaints because he was having more stable inspections.
27	Mr Ryan stated he did not believe he would use the word harass, and he did not believe Mr Osborne received any notification from him that Ms Zammit had sent emails complaining about him. 
28	In relation to Mr Riordan’s evidence that emails were sent to Dean Moore at Racing Victoria, Mr Ryan told the Tribunal initially emails had come to him then over time with more emails received it went up the chain to Dean Moore. Dean Moore was in the compliance assessment team of Racing Victoria. That team gathered and stored evidence on the Racing Victoria Capture system. Ms Zammit had a lot of dealings with Racing Victoria. Mr Ryan was aware Ms Zammit had made a lot of complaints. Mr Osborne had sent him audio files of Ms Zammit abusing him.
29	Under cross examination Mr Ryan told the Tribunal that while he did not recall the specific emails, he would have spoken to Mr Osborne during stable inspections. He did not recall mentioning receiving emails from Ms Zammit to Mr Osborne. He told the Tribunal he did not give Mr Osborne any copies of the emails.
30	During the hearing Ms Zammit put to Mr Ryan that he was not telling the truth, and that he had not done any stable inspections or issued Mr Osborne with any fines. 
31	Mr Ryan told the Tribunal that he did not have the records before him but that he had undertaken some of the stable inspections himself, and Mr Osborne had incurred fines in the past. 
Mr Hitchcock
32	During the hearing Mr James Hitchcock gave oral evidence and adopted his written statement dated 28 September 2023. 
33	In that statement Mr Hitchcock stated he was a member of the stewards panel at Racing Victoria and that he had been employed by Racing Victoria for 12 years. Mr Hitchcock stated that one of Racing Victoria’s key objectives was to ensure that Victorian thoroughbred racing was managed and conducted with the highest integrity. Stewards play an important part in this as they oversee all aspects of horse racing and wagering within the sport to ensure that the rules of racing were adhered to, including being responsible for maintaining the integrity of race day operations. 
34	Mr Hitchcock stated that stewards handle complaints and grievances that are made to Racing Victoria. Complaints may be submitted online through Racing Victoria’s website or by email. The way complaints or grievances are handled depends on how serious they are. For more serious matters they are likely to warrant a more thorough investigation and formal interview with the respondent. Less serious matters can be dealt with more informally. For example, a complaint could be made that a trainer has not completed their stable returns. That would be considered as less serious and dealt with informally. A steward may have an informal conversation with the trainer about such a complaint while at the trials or conducting a stable inspection.
35	Mr Hitchcock stated that in his experience stewards are conscious that privacy issues may arise when carrying out their responsibilities. Generally speaking, it is unlikely to be necessary to say who made a complaint and it is enough to say a complaint has been made and speak about the complaint generally. It can quite often be the case that complaints are made about a participant where the participant knows or suspects who has made the complaint.
36	In relation to Ms Zammit’s complaints about Mr Osborne, Mr Hitchcock stated he was aware of issues between Ms Zammit and Mr Osborne over many years. Racing Victoria had received numerous emails from the Ms Zammit since 2016 in relation to Mr Osborne with respect to alleged integrity matters.
37	Mr Hitchcock stated that in his role as steward he had dealings with Mr Osborne as a licensed trainer with Racing Victoria. He trained a racehorse owned by Ms Zammit some years ago. As of 1 August 2023 Mr Osborne was not a current licensed trainer.
38	Mr Hitchcock stated that on 11 May 2021 Ms Zammit emailed Racing Victorian and Racing Australia with a complaint about Mr Osborne. Racing Victoria provided a response to Ms Zammit about this complaint. 
39	Mr Hitchcock also stated that on 5, 8 and 12 July 2021 Ms Zammit emailed Racing Australia with a complaint about Mr Osborne. Racing Australia forwarded those emails to Racing Victoria on 13 July 2021. Mr Hitchcock stated he recalls reading emails in 2021 from Ms Zammit that were sent to the stewards’ group about Mr Osborne, but he did not recall speaking to or emailing Mr Osborne or Ms Zammit about them.
40	Mr Hitchcock stated that the complaints made by Ms Zammit in her 2021 emails are of a less serious nature. They would not warrant a formal investigation and would be dealt with informally.
41	Mr Hitchcock stated that he was aware another steward, Peter Ryan, handled the complaints contained in Ms Zammit’s July 2021 emails. Mr Ryan was the regional manager responsible for the area where Mr Osborne trained racehorses, so they had a working relationship. Mr Hitchcock stated that he had not located any record from 2021 that showed Ms Zammit’s emails were sent to or otherwise disclosed to Mr Osborne. He would have expected Mr Ryan to have spoken to Mr Osborne about the complaints in an informal setting.
42	Mr Hitchcock stated that it can quite often be the case that complaints are made about a participant where the participant knows or suspects who has made the complaint. This would have certainly been the case with Ms Zammit and Mr Osborne based on their history.
43	Under cross examination Mr Hitchcock told the Tribunal he was aware of the issues raised between Ms Zammit and Mr Osborne because Ms Zammit had been telephoning the office, and the integrity department, and because of Ms Zammit’s emails. 
44	Mr Hitchcock did not know why emails had been directed to Dean Moore but confirmed Dean Moore was a member of the integrity department. 
45	Mr Hitchcock did not accept Ms Zammit’s submissions that stewards do not deal with horse status complaints.
Respondent
46	In its Particulars of Defence and Points of Legal Contention documents, the respondent stated it did not admit it disclosed the emails to Mr Osborne. The respondent stated that there was no record from 2021 that showed the information was disclosed to Mr Osborne. A steward likely spoke to Mr Osborne about the complaints made at a race meeting. It is unknown if Ms Zammit’s name or status as the complainant was disclosed to Mr Osborne. It would have been obvious to Mr Osborne that the complainant was Ms Zammit given the persistent and numerous complaints made by Ms Zammit regarding Mr Osborne. But, even if it did, the respondent denied that was a breach of IPP 2.1 and/or 4.1.
47	The respondent stated any disclosure was for the primary purpose of collection, namely to investigate the complaints, in accordance with IPP 2.1. Alternatively, it was for a related secondary purpose that ought reasonably be expected in accordance with IPP 2.1(a).
48	In relation to IPP 2.1(a), the respondent stated that given the nature of the complaint, the matters had to be put to the particular individual for a response, and a reasonable person would have reasonably expected this. 
49	The respondent referred to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner’s guidelines on IPP’s, which noted that where a person raises a complaint with an organisation about the actions of a particular individual, it is often necessary to seek a response from the individual who is the subject of the complaint, in order to afford natural justice. Natural justice requires that where an allegation is made about an individual, and as a result it is proposed that action be taken against the person being complained about, it is only fair that the person be given a right of response in order for the complaint to be properly and fairly investigated. The respondent submitted that any disclosure was permitted by IPP 2.1(a) and so there had been no interference with Ms Zammit’s privacy.
Assessment
50	To be successful the complainant must prove their claims against the respondent on the balance of probabilities. To do so, the complainant must satisfy the Tribunal that it is more probable than not that the allegations which they have made occurred. If the weight of evidence about an issue in support of the complainant’s claim tilts in the complainant’s favour, then they have satisfied the burden of proof. However, if the evidence is evenly balanced between the complainant and respondent, or weighs in favour of respondent, then the complainant has failed to do so. 
51	I have given weight to the documents referred to by Ms Zammit, being the written statement of George Osborne and the letter from Victoria Police. 
52	I note the statement of Mr Osborne does not state he was provided a copy of the emails or that he was sent the emails by Mr Ryan. The document states he had been notified by Peter Ryan that Sharon Zammit had been harassing the department with emails complaining about him. No evidence was led from Mr Osborne in relation to what he meant by notification, or what was the exact information provided by Mr Ryan. No further evidence was led to contradict Mr Ryan’s oral evidence. 
53	The Victoria Police letter dated 16 December 2021 stated that in July 2021 Peter Ryan alerted Mr Osborne to emails received by Racing Victoria from Ms Zammit relating to him. No evidence was led from the author of that letter about the basis for that information. 
54	While there appears to be some confusion about who in Racing Victoria received the emails from Racing Australia, Ms Zammit submitted that as a steward Peter Ryan should not have received the emails or been asked to investigate the complaints raised in the emails. 
55	Ms Zammit submitted Peter Ryan and George Osborne were mates, and that the stewards in Racing Victoria were in cahoots with George Osborne in order to have her charged by police instead of investigating her complaints.
56	Ms Zammit told the Tribunal that the stewards of Racing Victoria do not handle complaints like those raised in her emails despite what Mr Riordan, Mr Hitchcock and Mr Ryan had said.
57	Ms Zammit submitted that Mr Hitchcock and Mr Ryan had not told the Tribunal the truth in relation to whether stewards at Racing Victoria handle complaints about horse statuses. 
58	Ms Zammit also submitted Mr Ryan had not told the Tribunal the truth in relation to undertaking stable inspections and issuing fines to Mr Osborne.
59	When asked on what basis Ms Zammit made her submissions, she told the Tribunal that because Mr Osborne had not updated the horse statuses, the stable inspections had not been conducted and the fines had not been issued despite what Mr Ryan had said. 
60	As noted above, both Mr Hitchcock and Mr Ryan gave oral evidence about the duties of stewards working for Racing Victoria and the complaint processes. Both Mr Hitchcock and Mr Ryan told the Tribunal that the stewards do handle the type of complaints raised in Ms Zammit’s emails and would do so through an informal process.
61	I am not satisfied that Mr Osborne not updating horse statuses indicates Mr Ryan had not undertaken stable inspections or that Mr Osborne had not incurred fines.
62	While Ms Zammit has raised concerns about the reliability of Mr Riordan’s, Mr Ryan’s and Mr Hitchcock’s evidence, I found them to be persuasive and reliable witnesses, and I accept they have told the Tribunal the truth. 
63	Their evidence was consistent and spontaneous and detailed to a level I would expect of persons with their professional experience. 
64	I do not accept Ms Zammit’s submissions that Mr Riordan did not tell the Tribunal the truth when he stated that the types of complaints in Ms Zammit’s emails were handled by stewards at Racing Victoria.
65	I do not accept Ms Zammit’s submissions that Mr Hitchcock did not tell the Tribunal the truth when he stated that the types of complaints in Ms Zammit’s emails were handled by stewards at Racing Victoria and would be dealt with informally.
66	I do not accept Ms Zammit’s submissions that Mr Ryan did not tell the Tribunal the truth, or that he was a mate of, or in a conspiracy with Mr Osborne. 
67	I do not accept Ms Zammit’s submissions that the stewards of Racing Victoria were in cahoots with Mr Osborne to have her charged rather than deal with her complaints.
68	In relation to Mr Ryan, as noted above, I found him to be persuasive and reliable witnesses and his evidence consistent and spontaneous and detailed to a level I would expect of a person with his professional experience. 
69	I accept Mr Ryan’s evidence that he did not give any notification to Mr Osborne, and that he did not give copies of any emails to Mr Osborne. I accept Mr Ryan’s evidence that he did not give Mr Osborne any information in relation to who had made complaints about Mr Osborne. 
70	I also accept Mr Ryan’s evidence that while he could not recall the specific emails, he did recall Ms Zammit had raised concerns and complaints about Mr Osborne, and that Mr Ryan had himself undertaken some of the stable inspections and that Mr Osborne had been issued with fines. 
71	I also accept that while Mr Ryan did not give any notification to Mr Osborne and did not give Mr Osbourne copies of any emails or information in relation to who had made complaints about him, Mr Ryan would have informed Mr Osborne a complaint or complaints had been received prompting the stable inspections. 
72	I also accept natural justice required a subject of a complaint be given information that a complaint had been received and the nature of the complaint. 
73	On the evidence before me, I consider it was more probable than not that Mr Osborne was able to speculate and conclude the identity of who had made complaints against him, given the history between Ms Zammit and Mr Osborne.
IPP 2.1
74	IPP 2.1 states that an organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose (the secondary purpose) other than the primary purpose of collection unless: 
(a)	both of the following apply –
(i)	the secondary purpose is related to the primary purpose of collection and, if the personal information is sensitive information, directly related to the primary purpose of collection;
(ii)	The individual would reasonably expect the organisation to use or disclose the information for the secondary purpose…
IPP 2.1(b)-(h) lists other circumstances when an organisation may use or disclose personal information.
75	I accept the complaints raised against Mr Osborne in Ms Zammit’s emails could not have been adequately addressed unless Mr Osborne was given an opportunity to respond. 
76	I accept the respondent’s submissions that providing Mr Osborne with details of the nature of complaints was part of the primary purpose of collection. If I am wrong about that, it was a related secondary purpose. A reasonable person in the complainant’s position should reasonably expect that in the interests of natural justice, where she has complained about a specific action or omissions of a certain individual, that individual would have to be consulted about the issue in order to ascertain whether or not there was any basis to the complaint.
77	In relation to Allegation 1, on the evidence before me I am not satisfied the respondent breached IPP 2.1.
IPP 4.1
78	IPP 4.1 states that an organisation must take reasonable steps to protect the personal information it holds from misuse or loss and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure.
79	On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied the respondent did not take reasonable steps to protect the personal information from misuse or loss or unauthorised access, modification or disclosure. 
80	In relation to Allegation 1, on the evidence before me I am not satisfied the respondent breached IPP 4.1.
81	I find Allegation 1 not proved and therefore dismissed.
Allegation 2
82	Allegation 2: The disclosures referred to in Allegation 1 prompted Mr Osborne to contact Victoria Police who subsequently contacted the Respondent and asked to receive copies of the Applicant’s correspondence, which the Respondent then disclosed to Victoria Police, in contravention of IPP 2.1.
83	In relation to Allegation 2 Ms Zammit referred the Tribunal to the letter from Victoria Police dated 16 December 2021 noted above. The letter stated that: 
In July 2021, Peter Ryan, head of Stewarts(sic) Racing Victoria, alerted Mr Osborne to emails received by Racing Victoria from Ms Zammit relating to him.
Mr Osborne reported the emails from Ms Zammit to Racing Victoria to Senior Constable Woods at Kyneton police station.
SC Woods commenced an investigation of potential contravention of Interim PSIO.
84	In relation to who had informed Victoria Police the letter stated:
Peter Ryan, head of Stewarts(sic) Racing Victoria, alerted Mr Osborne, who in turn reported the them (sic) to SC Woods.
85	In relation to the personal information collected about Ms Zammit from Racing Victoria the letter stated:
Content of email correspondence between Ms Zammit and Racing Victoria since 12/04/2021 relating to Mr Osborne.
Mr Halbert
86	During the hearing Mr Halbert gave evidence and adopted his written statement dated 28 September 2023. Mr Halbert told the Tribunal he was the Manager of Betting and Intelligence at Racing Victoria.
87	In his written statement Mr Halbert outlined the storage of Racing Victoria’s intelligence and integrity records. 
88	Mr Halbert also stated Racing Victoria shares information with Victoria Police from time to time. Racing Victoria may proactively provide information to Victoria Police or Victoria Police may request information. 
89	If Victoria Police requests information from Racing Victoria, the request is assessed to determine whether the information can be provided. In general terms it is understood that Victoria Police may request information about sporting integrity matters (including animal cruelty), criminal activity and financial anomalies. If information is provided to Victoria Police, it usually proceeds with certain caveats and it is provided in a password protected manner.
90	Mr Halbert stated he was authorised to approve the provision of information to Victoria Police.
91	In relation to Ms Zammit, Mr Halbert stated he was aware that there had been interactions between Ms Zammit and Mr Osborne. On 26 April 2019 Racing Victoria requested Ms Zammit stop sending emails to it about Mr Osborne unless she held the genuine view that the information would be relevant to its integrity role. Following its letter of 26 April 2019 Racing Victoria continued to receive complaints from Ms Zammit in relation to Mr Osborne both directly from Ms Zammit and through third parties such as Racing Australia.
92	Mr Halbert stated that Mr Osborne applied for an interim apprehended violence order against Mr Zammit in around April 2021 (‘IAVO’). Victoria Police commenced an investigation into whether Ms Zammit had breached the IAVO. 
93	On 26 July 2021 Victoria Police contacted Racing Victoria’s integrity services department by phone to request information regarding emails received from on or after 12 April 2021 relating to Mr Osborne in connection with their investigation into Ms Zammit’s conduct.
94	On 27 July 2021 Racing Victoria requested that Victoria Police provide their request in writing. That same day Victoria Police emailed Racing Victoria with a request for a copy of any emails sent from Ms Zammit to Racing Victoria after 12 April 2021 relating to Mr Osborne to assist in their investigation.
95	Mr Halbert stated that Racing Victoria gathered the relevant information in relation to the request and assessed whether it could be provided. In making that assessment, Racing Victoria considered whether the information was relevant to Victoria Police’s investigation of a criminal offence, whether it was reasonably necessary for Victoria Police’s investigation, and whether it should be provided to Victoria Police.
96	Mr Halbert stated that he approved the provision of the information to Victoria Police. He formed the view that it was reasonably necessary for its investigation of an alleged breach of an IAVO. This view was based on the fact that both parties were relevant to the racing industry, Victoria Police was investigating a criminal offence, Victoria Police had requested the information to assist in the investigation, and it was relevant to proving or disproving that offence.
97	The relevant information comprised the content of an email sent by Ms Zammit on 11 May 2021 to Racing Australia and to Racing Victoria, and the contents of three emails sent by Ms Zammit to Racing Australia on 5, 8 and 12 July 2021 which were forwarded by Racing Australia to Racing Victoria.
98	Under cross examination Mr Halbert was referred to the Victoria Police letter dated 16 December 2021. Mr Halbert told the Tribunal he was not aware Victora Police had stated that in July 2021 Peter Ryan head of Stewards for Racing Victoria alerted Mr Osborne to emails received by Racing Victoria from Mr Zammit relating to him.
99	Ms Zammit submitted to the Tribunal that the written statement of Mr Osborne and the Victoria Police letter dated 16 December 2021 both indicated Peter Ryan provided the emails to Mr Osborne and that Mr Ryan and Mr Osborne were friends and colluded to cause Victoria Police to harass her.
Respondent
100	In their Particulars of Defence and Points of Legal Contention documents, the respondent stated it did not admit that any disclosure prompted Mr Osborne to contact Victoria Police, and that Mr Osborne had been in contact with Victoria Police about Ms Zammit’s conduct prior to Racing Victoria receiving the emails.
101	The respondent admitted that it disclosed Ms Zammit’s correspondence to Victoria Police by email on 28 July 2023, but denied it was a breach of IPP 2.1.
102	The respondent submitted that the disclosure was permitted by IPP 2.1(g) as the respondent reasonably believed that the disclosure was reasonably necessary for Victoria Police’s investigation of a criminal offence or breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction. 
103	The respondent referred to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner’s guidelines in relation to IPP 2.1(g) which stated the organisation should also take steps to satisfy itself the use and disclosure is reasonably necessary for the specific law-enforcement function. However, these steps do not need to be extensive. In determining when it is reasonably necessary to disclose, the explanatory memorandum of the PDP Act suggested minimal information about the purpose of collection by the law enforcement agency would usually be enough to establish the disclosure was reasonably necessary.
104	The respondent submitted that when Victoria Police makes a written request for information to Racing Victoria stating that it is for the purpose of an investigation, that in itself becomes a reasonable basis to say that the information requested would be reasonably necessary for the investigation. 
105	In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that the information requested was not reasonably necessary. Rather the extensive complaint history and the interactions between the relevant individuals supports the reasonableness of forming the view that upon receiving Victoria Police’s information request, the information requested would be reasonably necessary for law enforcement purposes.
Assessment
106	IPP 2.1 states that an organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose (a secondary purpose) other than the primary purpose of collection unless:
(g)	the organisation reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary for one or more of the following by on behalf of a law enforcement agency – 
(i)	the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of a criminal offence or breaches of law imposing a penalty or sanction…
107	While I have dealt with some extracts of the Victoria Police letter dated 16 December 2021 above, I note the letter also stated that Victoria Police initiated an application for a personal safety intervention order on behalf of Mr Osborne against Ms Zammit, and that Ms Zammit was served with the Interim PSIO on 19 April 2021, and that Senior Constable Woods commenced a criminal investigation of protentional contravention of the PSIO. 
108	The letter stated that the emails from Ms Zammit to Racing Australia regarding Mr Osborne after service of the interim PSIO were potentially breaches of the interim PSIO order.
109	On the evidence before me, I do not accept that the disclosure referred to in Allegation 1 prompted Mr Osborne to contact Victoria Police. This is because I do not accept Mr Ryan notified or disclosed the emails as alleged. As noted above, it is more probable than not that when Mr Osborne became aware that complaints had been made in July 2021, he speculated and concluded the identity of who had made complaints against him, given the history between Ms Zammit and Mr Osbourne. 
110	I accept that Mr Halbert approved the provision of the information to Victoria Police, and that he had formed the view that it was reasonably necessary for its investigation of an alleged breach of an IAVO, and that Victoria Police had requested the information to assist in the investigation, and it was relevant to proving or disproving that offence.
111	I accept that Mr Halbert, and therefore the respondent, reasonably believed that the disclosure was reasonably necessary for the investigation of a criminal offence or breaches of law imposing a penalty or sanction, by a law enforcement agency.
112	I accept that the disclosure was permitted by IPP 2.1(g) and therefore no breach had occurred.
113	In relation to Allegation 2, on the evidence before me I am not satisfied the respondent breached IPP 2.1.
114	I find Allegation 2 not proved and therefore dismissed.
CONCLUSION 
115	As I have found the allegations of breaches of the Information Privacy Principles in Allegation 1 and Allegation 2 not proved, the complaint should be dismissed. 

C. Thwaites
Member