Which case involved a possible common law right to privacy?

• A. Croome v Tasmania
• B. Roach v Electoral Commissioner
• C. ABC v Lenah Game Meats
• D. Mabo v Queensland (No.2)

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is whether Australian law recognizes a general common-law right to privacy. In ABC v Lenah Game Meats, the High Court tackled that question directly. The court did not find a standing, standalone privacy tort in Australian common law at that time. It explained that while there isn’t a broad, overarching right to privacy, the possibility of such a right existing in principle isn’t ruled out and could develop in the future—either through gradual evolution of existing torts, like breach of confidence, or through legislative action.

This case involved footage obtained by hidden cameras at a Lenah processing plant and broadcast by the ABC. Lenah argued that publishing such material invaded privacy. The decision clarified that, given the absence of a general privacy tort, there isn’t an automatic legal shield against disclosure; privacy protections would come from the specific causes of action available or from potential statutory reform. That’s why this case is associated with the possible common-law right to privacy.

The other cases address different legal issues entirely—native title in Mabo, electoral/voting questions in Roach, and a different constitutional or political-communication matter in Croome—so they don’t center on the question of a possible privacy right.