Public servant Michelle Hinton, 56, illegally accessed government records 74 times in four months

Despite pleading guilty, the woman avoided jail and no conviction was recorded due to a series of “extenuating circumstances” related to the improper searches.

Michelle Hinton pleaded guilty to three counts of unauthorised access to restricted data on a Commonwealth computer in Brisbane Magistrates Court.

A public servant who illegally accessed a Federal Government system 74 times in four months has avoided jail and a recorded conviction due to “extenuating circumstances”.

Michelle Hinton, 56, worked as an employment consultant for 18 years helping challenging clients who lack skills to find work, and she had access to government employment records.

However, she pleaded guilty to three counts of unauthorised access to restricted data on a Commonwealth computer in Brisbane Magistrates Court on Thursday.

Crown prosecutor Ameera Mahomed Ismail said between November 2021 and March 2022, Hinton accessed the Jobseeker records of her ex-partner 39 times, accessed the records of her ex-partner’s new partner 32 times, and looked up her ex-partner’s children three times.

The court heard that Hinton worked for Community Solutions until March 2022, before then working for the Department of Workplace Relations from April to November 2022.

Ms Mahomed Ismail said the information Hinton would have seen included full name, date of birth, country of birth, and citizenship status.

“In her record of interview, the defendant explained that she said no malicious intent, but it was for the safety of her and her daughter,” Ms Mahomed Ismail told the court.

“She needed to know where [her ex-partner and her ex-partner’s family] were so that she could avoid those areas.”

The prosecution said the number of illegal accesses was concerning and represented a significant “breach of trust”.

“The sentence imposed must be of such a severity that it will operate to deter others who are minded to engage in such conduct, the public service depends on its workforce,” Ms Mahomed Ismail said.

However, Daniel Hua of Cridland & Hua Lawyers, representing Hinton, told the court of his client’s reasons for the illegal searches.

Mr Hua said not only was Hinton’s ex-partner harassing her, but her ex-partner’s son was also involved, with her seeing strange cars regularly driving past her home.

“She instructs the reason why she committed the offence was to keep tabs on the whereabouts of these people,” Mr Hua told the court.

“She was particularly interested because in some of the phone calls she did answer, her ex-partner said he had moved ‘far, far away’.

“She took that to mean that he was being sarcastic. She, rightly or wrongly, interpreted that as he knew exactly where she was and he was close by.”

Mr Hua said his client described her relationship with her ex-partner as “toxic from day one” and “containing sporadic but constant domestic abuse” including “manipulation, alcoholism and name calling”, resulting in her being “petrified of the man”.

In sentencing, magistrate Penelope Hay noted Hinton had “fully co-operated with the police investigation” and “made full and frank admissions”.

“This is an unusual set of circumstances,” she said.

“Ordinarily these types of computer information access breaches involve someone abusing their role for the benefit of another person and the release of that information to a third party.

“That has not occurred here, the nature of this breach is a direct consequence of you being in fear of your life arising from serious domestic violence over a lengthy period of time.”

The charge carried a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison, but the magistrate instead put Hinton on a $1000 good behaviour bond and chose not to record a conviction against her.