On 9 July 2022, the applicant in HHR v NSW Ambulance [2026] NSWCATAD 107 was detained by police and NSW ambulance paramedics relying on the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW).  In particular a medical practitioner had issued a certificate under s 19 authorising HHR’s detention and transport to a mental health facility.  The certificate was endorsed to approve police assistance ([16]).  

HHR had made complaints about the conduct of police on that and another occasion. They made two applications under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (‘the GIPA Act’) (which replaced the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW)) seeking access to all the records held by NSW Ambulance relating to their actions on that day.  The Ambulance service provided documents but redacted some information in particular information about who had provided information to them about HHR’s behaviour and their concerns about HHR’s mental health, and the identity of the paramedics who attended HHR.

The GIPA Act starts from the premise that people should be able to access government held information unless there is an overriding public interest in keeping the information confidential ([33]).   Reasons to deny access to information is that the release of the requested information would ‘prejudice the supply to an agency of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of that agency’s functions’, would ‘reveal an individual’s personal information’ and/or ‘expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation’ (GIPA Act s 14 quoted at [38]).

At [65] the Tribunal said ‘In Northern Sydney Local Health District v FZK [2025] NSWCATAP 62 (FZK), the Appeal Panel found that information within the applicant’s medical records, described as “expressions of concern, opinions or knowledge held by third parties concerning the respondent”, was personal information of third parties’. So information that the ambulance service had, where other people expressed concerns about HHR’s behaviour, was the personal information of those other people and therefore details should not be released as it would be releasing their personal information.

Further, there was a public interest in not disclosing information as it may discourage people contacting the ambulance service when they have concerns about another person’s welfare. At [67] the Tribunal said:

This is a significant consideration against disclosure, having regard to the context and circumstances in which the information appears in the relevant records, that is, in connection with a request for assistance from the respondent [ambulance service]. The evidence is that, as a general rule, NSW Ambulance does not release the names and contact details of callers, unless an application for information under the GIPA Act is accompanied by an authority from that individual to be identified. Disclosure of this information would constitute a breach of privacy and would lead to a loss of trust in NSW Ambulance to protect the interests of persons who make calls seeking assistance. This is a public interest consideration which applies not only to this information but also in other contexts where information is provided confidentially by members of the public to authorities.

And at [72]-[74]:

It is the evidence that the redacted information in IDR 10570 includes identifying information about the “informant”, including name and contact details, as well as certain information supplied by that informant to NSW Police, which was subsequently forwarded to NSW Ambulance. When someone seeks the assistance of NSW Ambulance, details are collected as to the name of the informant and their contact details. This is crucial information to allow NSW Ambulance to remain in contact with the informant during the course of the incident, and to allow all necessary information to be gathered to enable officers to perform their functions, such as information about the location of a patient, their medical condition, and any risk factors of which officers need to be aware.

… If the respondent were to release the personal details of callers, this would constitute a breach of privacy and would lead to a loss of trust in NSW Ambulance to protect the interests of persons who make calls seeking assistance.

If the respondent did not preserve the privacy and confidentiality of callers, there would be a real risk that individuals would be reluctant to contact NSW Ambulance to seek assistance and to provide full and frank disclosure about matters regarding the incident. This would significantly impede the ability of NSW Ambulance officers to perform their functions in responding to an incident, and may put either the patient, or the officers at a heightened risk.

As to the identity of the treating paramedics the Tribunal said (at [76]-[78]):

The respondent is justifiably cautious about releasing the identifying information of paramedics. Paramedics face a heightened risk of occupational violence due to the nature of incidents they are required to attend in their usual work. …

Releasing the identifying information of paramedics puts them at a heightened risk of being subjected to harassment or intimidation, particularly in the case of individuals whose engagement with officers was not voluntary, or who are otherwise aggrieved by their interactions with the health system. This would prejudice the respondent’s functions in ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of staff and ensuring that they work in a safe environment.

There is a particular concern regarding disclosure of information identifying individual paramedics to the applicant, due to his conduct as a frequent correspondent to various officers of NSW Ambulance, sending emails that may be considered objectively to be threatening and abusive in tone.

Balancing the applicant’s right to access information held by the government about themselves against the public interest in not releasing the information identifying who had provided information to the police and ambulance service, and the identity of the attending paramedics, the Tribunal upheld the original decision to redact the identifying information; that is (at [83]) ‘… the public interest considerations against disclosure of the redacted information outweigh the public interest favouring disclosure…’

Conclusion

The principles applied here would apply in other cases eg where someone has reported a fire or other emergency and a disgruntled person wants to know who ‘dobbed them in’ or who suggested they were doing something dangerous or improper.  Equally the protection of responders will be equally relevant in other cases.   In fact similar issues have been discussed with respect to internal actions eg where a person subject to disciplinary action wants to know who complained – see for example:

Readers of this blog might feel some comfort that agencies can redact personal information when responding to GIPA requests.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.