Kaye McKinnon hits out at Gold Coast council officers’ camera powers

A woman says Gold Coast City Council officers have too much discretion in how they use body-worn cameras after she was fined for the behaviour of her dog.

A WOMAN says Gold Coast City Council officers have too much discretion in how they use body-worn cameras after she was fined for the behaviour of her dog.

Kaye McKinnon claims an officer only turned on his camera after he “intimidated” and provoked her.

Ms McKinnon was fined $130 for “failing to keep her animal under effective control” after one of her two foxy terrier dogs, Poppy, scratched the leg of a passing resident at her Broadbeach apartment block in May.

WATCH THE REPLAY: LABOR SNUBS COOMERA DEBATE

Kaye McKinnon with her two mini foxy's ( red collar, Jaque and blue Poppy. Picture: Jerad Williams

She took the matter to the Southport Magistrates Court, arguing Poppy reacted in “self-defence” because the tenant she scratched was in an agitated state when they walked into their space. She lost and had to pay $1000.

Despite the decision, Ms McKinnon said she wanted greater consistency around how council officers use body-worn cameras when dealing with the public.

“Basically, his message was that my dog had bitten the tenant. Even though I later found out from the photos taken it was a scratch mark.

“He led me to believe it was serious bite and my dogs could be destroyed.

“I was intimidated by his words as he repeatedly stated that my dogs could be seized and destroyed.

FIRST LOOK AT LUXURY RETREAT’S MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR REVAMP

Kaye McKinnon said she believes the council officers have too much discression when it comes to filming. Picture: Jerad Williams

“He then returned to his car with the excuse that he was collecting a form but what he chose to do was to put on a body camera and film the rest of our conversation.

“He seemed to want an admission of guilt that my dogs were not under control and, at the very least, an agreement that an incident took place.

“His demeanour noticeably changed once he was filming me and he became much more polite.

“The repeated threats that my dogs will be destroyed was very distressful and I was naturally very emotional and not thinking clearly. It was a traumatic experience.

“I don’t think other members of the community to be selectively filmed in this way without their knowledge. In my view this practice is unfair, as it did not provide the context for what was recorded.”

A spokesman for the Gold Coast City Council said City Hall did not comment on individual cases regarding residents.

“To protect both City officers and residents, body cameras are worn by officers to record interactions with the community.”

“The use of these devices and the recording of both audio and video information is lawful under Queensland’s Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 and Information Privacy Act 2009.”