The Royal Baby

[thebish]

no need for apology - I think this is simply a straightforward misunderstanding on my part and on yours...

That's because there's hairy old cheesy foetid bollox in your ears.

Can I hold both your £100's until you resolve this?

the wager offer was from Bruce to Pru... you'll have to ask him!

[Worthy4England]

no need for apology - I think this is simply a straightforward misunderstanding on my part and on yours...

That's because there's hairy old cheesy foetid bollox in your ears.

Can I hold both your £100's until you resolve this?

the wager offer was from Bruce to Pru... you'll have to ask him!

Ohh.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Pru, on the legal side I note today that the BBC reports:

In an interview with a Melbourne radio station 3AW, Rhys Holleran - whose company Southern Cross Austereo owns 2DayFM - said his staff had tried several times to make contact with Mrs Saldanha and another nurse at the King Edward VII's Hospital to get their permission to use the prank conversation before it was transmitted.

Mr Holleran said the death of Mrs Saldanha was "tragic" and "regrettable", but that it "could not have been foreseen".

Some legal experts in Australia have said if the radio station did not tell the nurses they were being recorded, or received their permission to broadcast the conversation, they may be in breach of a number of laws.

If we believe this Holleran chap that they actually tried to reach the two nurses, does trying and failing to get permission justify going ahead and broadcasting?

[bobo the clown]

Pru, on the legal side I note today that the BBC reports:

In an interview with a Melbourne radio station 3AW, Rhys Holleran - whose company Southern Cross Austereo owns 2DayFM - said his staff had tried several times to make contact with Mrs Saldanha and another nurse at the King Edward VII's Hospital to get their permission to use the prank conversation before it was transmitted.

If we believe this Holleran chap that they actually tried to reach the two nurses, does trying and failing to get permission justify going ahead and broadcasting?

I'm sure they can produce phone bills showing they made those calls !!

(harumph).

[Montreal Wanderer]

Pru, on the legal side I note today that the BBC reports:

In an interview with a Melbourne radio station 3AW, Rhys Holleran - whose company Southern Cross Austereo owns 2DayFM - said his staff had tried several times to make contact with Mrs Saldanha and another nurse at the King Edward VII's Hospital to get their permission to use the prank conversation before it was transmitted.

If we believe this Holleran chap that they actually tried to reach the two nurses, does trying and failing to get permission justify going ahead and broadcasting?

I'm sure they can produce phone bills showing they made those calls !!

(harumph).

If no one answered it might not show up on the bill...

[Prufrock]

Interesting. As I said, my knowledge of Australian law is somewhat, shall we say, limited. It must be said that it's hardly a confidently made point. 'Some' experts said they 'may' be in breach of 'a number' of laws. It must be said though, that we are out of step with a lot of the Western world when it comes to privacy laws (mainly because we don't have any, ECHR aside!) so it wouldn't surprise me if they had breached Australian law.

On the other hand, the more I've thought about it and discussed it over the weekend, the more convinced I am that any civil claim for the consequences of the phone call would be as domed as the Taj Mahal!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Interesting. As I said, my knowledge of Australian law is somewhat, shall we say, limited. It must be said that it's hardly a confidently made point. 'Some' experts said they 'may' be in breach of 'a number' of laws. It must be said though, that we are out of step with a lot of the Western world when it comes to privacy laws (mainly because we don't have any, ECHR aside!) so it wouldn't surprise me if they had breached Australian law.

On the other hand, the more I've thought about it and discussed it over the weekend, the more convinced I am that any civil claim for the consequences of the phone call would be as domed as the Taj Mahal!

The civil claims would be made against the station, not the DJs. I agree that suicide could not be predicted, but the station still had no right to broadcast without permission and the nurses were still violated. We will of course have to wait and see.

[Prufrock]

Interesting. As I said, my knowledge of Australian law is somewhat, shall we say, limited. It must be said that it's hardly a confidently made point. 'Some' experts said they 'may' be in breach of 'a number' of laws. It must be said though, that we are out of step with a lot of the Western world when it comes to privacy laws (mainly because we don't have any, ECHR aside!) so it wouldn't surprise me if they had breached Australian law.

On the other hand, the more I've thought about it and discussed it over the weekend, the more convinced I am that any civil claim for the consequences of the phone call would be as domed as the Taj Mahal!

The civil claims would be made against the station, not the DJs. I agree that suicide could not be predicted, but the station still had no right to broadcast without permission and the nurses were still violated. We will of course have to wait and see.

Just the station? I'd have thought both would be jointly and severally liable.

I'd be interested to know how often the law in question is relied on.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Interesting. As I said, my knowledge of Australian law is somewhat, shall we say, limited. It must be said that it's hardly a confidently made point. 'Some' experts said they 'may' be in breach of 'a number' of laws. It must be said though, that we are out of step with a lot of the Western world when it comes to privacy laws (mainly because we don't have any, ECHR aside!) so it wouldn't surprise me if they had breached Australian law.

On the other hand, the more I've thought about it and discussed it over the weekend, the more convinced I am that any civil claim for the consequences of the phone call would be as domed as the Taj Mahal!

The civil claims would be made against the station, not the DJs. I agree that suicide could not be predicted, but the station still had no right to broadcast without permission and the nurses were still violated. We will of course have to wait and see.

Just the station? I'd have thought both would be jointly and severally liable.

I'd be interested to know how often the law in question is relied on.

The employer not the employee is generally liable in the situation where the employee is doing his or her job (vicarious liability). The CEO is reported to have said that the company lawyers approved the broadcast ahead of time. This would, I think, let the employees off the hook in terms of liability.

One law would be the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). This establishes a Privacy Commissioner who produces and annual report. This might give the information that interests you.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I've just had a quick look at an Australian government Q&A website about recording conversations. It is stated:

Are there rules about recording or monitoring my telephone conversations?

Yes. Monitoring (listening in to), or recording of telephone conversations, is a matter tightly controlled by law. The federal Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 and State and Territory listening devices laws may both apply to this activity. The general rule is that the call may not be recorded. There are exceptions to these rules in very limited circumstances including where a warrant applies.

If a call is to be recorded or monitored, an organisation must tell you at the beginning of the conversation so that you have the chance either to end the call, or to ask to be transferred to another line where monitoring or recording does not take place if this is available.

http://www.privacy.gov.au/faq/individuals/q1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I've just had a quick look at an Australian government Q&A website about recording conversations. It is stated:

Are there rules about recording or monitoring my telephone conversations?

Yes. Monitoring (listening in to), or recording of telephone conversations, is a matter tightly controlled by law. The federal Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 and State and Territory listening devices laws may both apply to this activity. The general rule is that the call may not be recorded. There are exceptions to these rules in very limited circumstances including where a warrant applies.

If a call is to be recorded or monitored, an organisation must tell you at the beginning of the conversation so that you have the chance either to end the call, or to ask to be transferred to another line where monitoring or recording does not take place if this is available.

http://www.privacy.gov.au/faq/individuals/q1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now that is pretty clear cut.
What is not so clear cut is whether the hospital is lying through its teeth when it says that no disciplinary action was being contemplated, and also where they stated that the nurse in question was 'being fully supported' by the hospital - there are big doubts about both of those factoids.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The inquest opened today. The police (tantalizingly) say she left three notes but we do not yet know what was in them. They would go some way to answering questions. Meanwhile the station is being investigated to see if it violated the license regulations (which I suspect it did). If it is found guilty of this, Prufrock, would it add force to a civil liability case against the station?

[Prufrock]

The inquest opened today. The police (tantalizingly) say she left three notes but we do not yet know what was in them. They would go some way to answering questions. Meanwhile the station is being investigated to see if it violated the license regulations (which I suspect it did). If it is found guilty of this, Prufrock, would it add force to a civil liability case against the station?

Again, it depends what. For any Australian invasion of privacy claim, almost certainly. For a claim in regards to her death, I don't think so.

I think there are arguments all along the line for why there could be no claim for her death. Given your post from way back regarding the factors used to determine a breach of duty, and given its historical background I'd be surprised if there were massive differences between Australian and English law on this point. Despite what Crayons says regarding the egg-shell rule and taking your victim as you find them, her suicide was clearly an intervening act and so I can't possibly see how it could be said they caused her death, legally. Furthermore, any psychiatric harm in the run up would be pure psychiatric harm and so would have to be a recognisable medical condition, something which it seems difficult to diagnose now. That's really briefly and poorly explained, but I'm ill as fook!

[Montreal Wanderer]

The inquest opened today. The police (tantalizingly) say she left three notes but we do not yet know what was in them. They would go some way to answering questions. Meanwhile the station is being investigated to see if it violated the license regulations (which I suspect it did). If it is found guilty of this, Prufrock, would it add force to a civil liability case against the station?

Again, it depends what. For any Australian invasion of privacy claim, almost certainly. For a claim in regards to her death, I don't think so.

I think there are arguments all along the line for why there could be no claim for her death. Given your post from way back regarding the factors used to determine a breach of duty, and given its historical background I'd be surprised if there were massive differences between Australian and English law on this point. Despite what Crayons says regarding the egg-shell rule and taking your victim as you find them, her suicide was clearly an intervening act and so I can't possibly see how it could be said they caused her death, legally. Furthermore, any psychiatric harm in the run up would be pure psychiatric harm and so would have to be a recognisable medical condition, something which it seems difficult to diagnose now. That's really briefly and poorly explained, but I'm ill as fook!

Get well soon.
I don't think they get sued for her death - they get sued for damages for what they did to both nurses. The fact that one subsequently committed suicide (and if the hoax is considered the principal reason for said act) the damages could be higher than normal without giving any reason. Anyway I'm glad we can finally agree that there might be some civil liability here which was what kicked off the whole thing.

[Prufrock]

I agree there could be civil liability for invasion of privacy, depending on Austrlian law. Beyond that I remain highly sceptical.