High Court Examines Ownership Dispute Over Hidden Camera Footage in Goat Abattoir

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.

In contrast, GMC's lawyers defended the decision, noting that the primary judge found the trespasses by FTI against GMC's secured premises were among the most obvious examples of intentional wrongdoing.

GMC's submissions to the High Court emphasized that the appeal rests on a false premise, with a sound factual basis and proper principle underpinning the ruling. 'Farm Transparency's wrong was [straightforward in] its deliberate and knowing breach of the law against trespass,' GMC lawyers stated in submissions.

They added that there was a sound factual basis and a proper principle for the decision.

The Human Rights Law Centre and the Alliance for Journalists Freedom, led by journalist Peter Greste, have sought leave to contribute to the High Court case. Their submissions express concern about the potential impact on whistleblowers, news organisations, and the public interest if the ruling transferring ownership to GMC stands.

Abc reported that the groups urged the High Court to consider other options for addressing the issue, though the fate of the footage remains undecided pending the court's decision.