world
High Court Examines Ownership Dispute Over Hidden Camera Footage in Goat Abattoir
Australia's High Court is examining a case on ownership rights to footage captured by hidden cameras in a goat abattoir. The dispute pits animal rights group Farm Transparency International against the Game Meats Company of Australia. The outcome could affect media use of covert recordings.
Audio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
Developing·Limited corroboration so far. This page will refresh as more sources emerge.
Australia's High Court began hearing a challenge on ownership rights to footage captured by secret cameras installed in a goat abattoir, with potential implications for media and whistleblowers. The case centers on Farm Transparency International (FTI), which placed the cameras in an abattoir owned by the Game Meats Company of Australia (GMC).
Abc reported that the abattoir, located in Eurobin, Victoria, operates as a Halal facility for slaughtering and processing goats for export.
The secret cameras were positioned between January and April 2024, capturing what FTI described as evidence of extreme animal cruelty. FTI compiled a 14-minute video from the footage and sent it to the regulator, but received no response. The group then forwarded the material to a local TV station and posted it online, prompting GMC to secure a court injunction to halt its distribution until the case could be resolved.
The local TV station described the footage but did not broadcast it, while the online version was subsequently taken down. FTI activists admitted to trespassing on the abattoir's property to install the cameras. In the initial court proceedings, a judge ordered FTI to pay $130,000 in damages to GMC for the trespass.
However, the court refused GMC's other claims regarding ownership of the footage. On appeal, ownership was allocated to GMC through a constructive trust, a remedy imposed by the court to benefit a party deprived of rights when another holds property it should not possess. Abc reported that this marks the first time a constructive trust has been applied in such a case.
Lawyers for FTI argued that the appeal court's reasoning was flawed, as it did not identify a principle or facts supporting the ruling and instead imposed the constructive trust based on a moral evaluation of FTI's conduct. 'What the Full Court proceeded to do was impose a constructive trust consequent to a moral evaluation of FTI's conduct,' the Farm Transparency International submissions stated.