Redland City mayor Karen Williams defended the legal letters when they were sent in 2015. Credit:Facebook At the time, Cr Williams defended the action as a means to put the matter "to bed". "It's really about the officers here who have been doing their jobs diligently according to the policies in place and I think enough's enough," she said in 2015. "It's time their names were cleared, because there's been no proof whatsoever and, obviously, the CEO took action last week in regards to his duty of care, but it still continues to go on." Two of those five residents, Adelia Berridge and "Complainant B" – whose employer was contacted by the council – took the matter to the ombudsman.

The ombudsman, Mr Clarke, looked favourably upon their complaints. Mr Clarke said there was no documentation of the decision-making process that led to the council sending legal letters to the two residents. "The errors in the letters sent to (Ms Berridge) and Complainant B and the lack of documented decisions leads me to the conclusion that there was only a superficial or rushed consideration of the action taken by council," Mr Clarke said in his report, which was published on Thursday. "This is disappointing as it is evident from (Ms Berridge's) and Complainant B's complaints that the action taken by council caused significant stress and anxiety to them. "Such stress is a reasonably foreseeable response to such an action."

Mr Clarke also noted the council spent public money on external legal advice to determine whether the posts were defamatory, as a cost to ratepayers of $2860. "Given the lack of documented decisions and other significant flaws I have identified in council's approach, it would be difficult to say this was an appropriate use of public funds," he said. The council also sent a legal letter to the University of Queensland, the then-employer of Complainant B, about the social media posts. Complainant B's employment contract was subsequently not renewed. "It should have been clear to council on the information available to it at the time that Complainant B did not intend to have details of her employment associated with her comments," Mr Clarke said.

"In any event, it would have been reasonable for council to confirm this with Complainant B prior to taking any action in this regard. "In my view, council's decision to contact Complainant B's employer could reasonably be considered punitive in the circumstances." On that point, Complainant B, who asked not to be named, agreed. "It was punitive, a slap on the wrist, to say 'don't speak out about the council or we'll come after you and it won't be nice'," she told Fairfax Media. "That was the lesson they were trying to get across, but it was certainly an effective punishment and has ongoing effects in terms of my career."

The ombudsman had recommended the council apologise to both Ms Berridge and Complainant B, which was not accepted by the council. "However, I have determined that a more appropriate course of action is for council to write to (Ms Berridge) and Complainant B and formally withdraw its threat to commence legal action for defamation, as outlined in the letters sent to both complainants," Mr Clarke said. "This action will assure both complainants that this matter is at an end and that they are not at risk of having legal action commenced against them for any comments which still remain on social media." Both Ms Berridge and Complainant B told Fairfax Media they were happy with the ombudsman's findings. But Ms Berridge said she felt "extremely angry" she had to go through such lengths to get results.

"It's all about controlling people by fear, that's how I see this," she said. "This council uses that power of fear to control people. There were five of us who got those letters and only two of us made a formal complaint. "The other three were frightened off." Still, Ms Berridge said she felt vindicated by the ombudsman's findings. "We knew we were right," she said. "We just had to have it acknowledged by a third party, because the council wouldn't acknowledge it."

A Redland City Council spokesman said it only became aware of the ombudsman's report on Thursday afternoon. "Council stands by its detailed response and submissions put to the ombudsman, some of which were published in the ombudsman's final report," he said. "Council's submissions highlight the grounds for council's disagreement with the report findings and council will be taking the opportunity to properly review the ombudsman findings and recommendation within the time frame allowed following today's report publication. "Council will respond in more detail, if appropriate, once it has had opportunity to fully review the published report." For independent news coverage, be sure to follow our Facebook feed.