VIC Distributing Recordings of OC Committee meetings

[adonis_paradise]

A hypothetical. Let's say that:

a. An OC Committee has an (online) meeting
b. Everyone present is informed that the meeting is being recorded (by the software), so that "Steve" can write the minutes
c. A Committee member (who doesn't trust "Steve") also records their own copy of that meeting.

Is it 'legal' for them to send this audio copy to the other (non present) Owners?

thanks
AP

 

[Rod]

c is OK.

However forwarding the recording to others becomes problematic. Best wait until the official minutes have been produced, then attempt to correct them with Steve's recording and your 'recollection' Only disclose your recording as a very last resort. You can also say according to your notes of the meeting, here is your version of the discussion/decisions,

 

[Tim W]

Without the express consent of everyone involved,
it is almost certainly an offence to record the meeting in the first place.
And remember - the minutes are in draft form until formally adopted at the next meeting.

 

[Rod]

it is almost certainly an offence to record the meeting in the first place.

Hi Tim,

Not in Victoria. There are differences in the Vic and NSW laws regarding recordings. In Vic people are allowed to record conversations to which they are a party without the consent of others.

The problem becomes one of what they can then do with the recording and there are limitations, especially in employment and family law situations, around how the recording can be used.

 

[Tim W]

Hi Tim,

Not in Victoria. There are differences in the Vic and NSW laws regarding recordings. In Vic people are allowed to record conversations to which they are a party without the consent of others.

The problem becomes one of what they can then do with the recording and there are limitations, especially in employment and family law situations, around how the recording can be used.

For private conversations, yes.
However, in Victoria, it would be a matter for an accused to make the defence that a meeting,
where numerous persons were present, and who were taking turns to speak,
in a generally ordered (if not always orderly) environment,
was a "private conversation" of the kind contemplated by the Victorian act.

(to be fair, I acknowledge the possibility of existing Victorian case law (as distinct from Commonwealth) where this has been considered...)

 

[Rod]

Hi Tim,

FYI, under Vic law "private conversation" means a conversation carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be heard only by themselves, but does not include a conversation made in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it may be overheard by someone else.

Under that definition a meeting can be considered to be a private conversation. A quick check of case law (ie not thorough) did not disclose any relevant judicial interpretations either way.

 

[Tim W]

Under that definition a meeting can be considered to be a private conversation. A quick check of case law (ie not thorough) did not disclose any relevant judicial interpretations either way.

Maybe not so much.

If prosecuting, I'd be arguing that an organised meeting
lacks the ad hoc, informal, and unordered nature of a private conversation.
On which basis, the protections in the act do not apply, and therefore the offence is made out.

Further, I'd be arguing that it was open to the court to find as follows:

That the very fact that of meeting being minuted
contemplates other people, not just the persons present at the time,
knowing (albeit later) the content of the conversation; and
that the record so made should (for reasons we don't have here) be legally reliable; .

The above notion is supported in this case
by the concern held by at least one party
that the accuracy of the minutes will not be a given.

--> If the accuracy of the content "matters" (for whatever reason),
then I'd be arguing that it's open to the court to find that this meeting
is not a mere private conversation of the kind the act purports to deal with.

Any reasonable construction of the legislative intent
must distinguish the two.
Bottom line - absent any case law saying otherwise, it's not a given
that a minuted meeting is a private conversation.

(it's always an intellectual delight to get out the jousting sticks with you, @Rod....)

 

[Rod]

I also enjoy a good dialectic discussion.

My argument is that there is nothing in the definition of 'private discussion' that states a private meeting has to be ad-hoc or informal or unordered.

To put those limitations in place is to create a who class of meetings that may never be recorded without the consent of all parties. If someone in a group needs to protect their lawful interests then under your interpretation the law would prevent them from protecting themselves.

Parliament could have easily listed your limitations and it did not do so. Organised meetings with multiple parties are not a new phenomenon and were known at the time the law was introduced so it would be difficult to successfully argue the limitations you suggest should exist or apply.

Minuting meetings is a traditional way of summarising what may be a 2 or 4 hour meeting for others, typically those with an interest in the meeting, most commonly people who could attend but didn't.

I'd be arguing to the court it is not open to it to conclude the meeting was not a private meeting. It was a closed meeting only open to invited people, held in private and not subject to being overhead by non-interested third parties.



PS: the EM was no assistance, and I haven't checked the Hansard speeches - always takes me a long time to find the speech I need.