Today’s correspondent asks ‘are NEPT [Non-Emergency Patient Transport] workers included in emergency service personnel protection laws?’   

I assume, by ‘emergency service personnel protection laws’ my correspondent means various provisions that create a unique or aggravated offence when it comes to assaults on emergency service workers or other offences directed to them. Whether NEPT workers are covered will depend on the terms of the relevant law.

Queensland

The Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 340(2AA) says

A person who—

(a) unlawfully assaults, or resists or wilfully obstructs, a public officer while the officer is performing a function of the officer’s office; or

(b) assaults a public officer because the officer has performed a function of the officer’s office;

commits a crime.

Depending on the type of assault the maximum penalty ranges from 7 to 14 years imprisonment.

Public officer is defined to mean (s 340(3)) ‘a member, officer or employee of a service established for a public purpose under an Act’.  They Act lists, as an example ‘Queensland Ambulance Service established under the Ambulance Service Act 1991’.  

What follows is that if an NEPT worker is employed by Queensland Ambulance then yes, they are included in this offence type; but if they are not then they are outside this provision.  

New South Wales

In New South Wales there are offences of hindering, obstructing, assaulting, throwing ‘missiles’, stalking, harassing, intimidating, assaulting, wounding and causing grievous bodily harm to ‘front line health workers’ (Crimes Act 1900(NSW) s 60AE).  The maximum penalties range from 12 months imprisonment to 14 years imprisonment.  

The term frontline health worker includes (s 60AA)

(a)  a person employed or otherwise engaged to provide medical or other health treatment to patients—

(i)  in a hospital, or

(ii)  in a health institution under the control of a local health district or statutory health corporation under the Health Services Act 1997, or

(a1) …

(b)  a member of the Ambulance Service of NSW, or

(c)  a person employed or otherwise engaged by the St John Ambulance Australia (NSW) who, in that capacity, provides medical care, or

(d)  a member of Hatzolah who, in that capacity, provides medical care…

If an NEPT worker is employed by any of those organisations, then they are a frontline health worker, and the specific offences apply to them.

Victoria

In Victoria an assault on ‘an emergency worker on duty’ is a specific offence (Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 31(1)(b)) with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.  That is the same penalty as an assault on any person (s 31(1)(a)) but there are unique sentencing provisions for assaults on emergency workers (see No gaol time for defendants who assaulted Victorian Paramedic (May 18, 2018)).  For the purposes of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) the definition of ‘emergency worker’ includes (s 10AA) 

• ‘an operational staff member within the meaning of the Ambulance Services Act 1986’ (which includes any person who is engaged as a paramedic or in any capacity ‘to provide medical or other assistance to patients in an emergency’ (Ambulance Services Act 1986 (Vic ) s 3), 
• ‘a person employed or engaged to provide, or support the provision of, emergency treatment to patients in a hospital’ or 
• ‘any other person or body— (i) required or permitted under the terms of their employment by, or contract for services with, the Crown or a government agency to respond (within the meaning of the Emergency Management Act 2013) to an emergency (within the meaning of that Act)’.

It seems axiomatic that a NEPT worker is not providing assistance in an emergency – they are a ‘non-emergency’ worker; but they may be. NEPT providers may be tasked to stand-by at an emergency (Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003 (Vic) s 4(c)).

One would have to say that prima facie the sentencing provisions do not apply where the victim is an NEPT worker as they are, by definition, not providing emergency treatment, but in the right circumstances they could be brought within these definitions.

Tasmania

In Tasmania there is a ‘Presumption of mandatory imprisonment for offence causing serious bodily harm to frontline worker’ (Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas) s 16B).  The definition of ‘frontline worker’ is very convoluted, but it does include a person ‘employed or appointed under the Ambulance Service Act 1982 (Tas)’ so that would include NEPT officers employed by Ambulance Tasmania.  Given the very detailed definition that appears to cover just about everyone including bus and taxi drivers, it does seem remiss that it does not specifically include people engaged to provide NEPT services under the Ambulance Service Act 1982 (Tas). 

South Australia

In South Australia there are offences of causing harm to and assaulting a ‘prescribed emergency worker’ (Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20AA). Maximum penalties range from 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment.  The definition of prescribed emergency worker includes 

… a person (whether a health practitioner, nurse, nurse practitioner, midwife, security officer or otherwise) performing duties in a hospital, or at any other place where medical treatment is provided or medical testing undertaken (however described, but including, without limiting this paragraph, a general practice, medical centre or other place at which people are vaccinated or screened for diseases)

That definition would, I’m sure, include NEPT workers as some form of medical treatment, even if it is just monitoring, takes place in an NEPT vehicle. People are there because they are ‘patients’ not just people wanting transport.

Western Australia

Committing an offence, such as causing grievous bodily harm, is aggravated if the victim is ‘a person … providing a health service to the public’ or an ‘ambulance officer’. (Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) s 297; see also s 318 ‘Serious assaults’).  The term ‘ambulance officer’ is not defined and Western Australia does not have ambulance services legislation, nor does the state operate an ambulance service, rather it contracts with St John Ambulance Australia (WA) to provide public ambulance services.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary online, an ambulance is ‘a vehicle equipped for transporting the injured or sick’. If that were adopted in WA then it would not be hard to argue that an NEPT officer is an ‘ambulance officer’ for the purposes of the Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) s 297.

The Australian Capital Territory

The Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26A creates the offence of ‘Assault on frontline community service provider’.   A member of an emergency service is a frontline community service provider (s 26A(5)).  The ACT Ambulance Service is one of the emergency services and it employs people as NEPT officers.  Those staff employed by ACT ambulance are therefore ‘frontline community service providers’ but those employed by other agencies are not. 

Northern Territory

In the Northern Territory there is an aggravated offences of assault on an emergency worker (s 189A). An emergency worker includes ‘an ambulance officer or paramedic employed or engaged in providing ambulance services’.  Like WA, the NT does not have ambulance service legislation, nor does it operate an ambulance service, again contracting with St John Ambulance Australia (NT) to provide those services.  The term ‘ambulance officer’ is not defined but given NEPT officers are driving an ambulance (ie ‘a vehicle equipped for transporting the injured or sick’) then one would expect that they would fall within this definition.

Conclusion

Whether ‘NEPT [Non-Emergency Patient Transport] workers included in emergency service personnel protection laws’ does depend on the terms of the law in each jurisdiction.  The discussion above shows that the answer is probably no, but in some circumstances they will be eg if they are assisting at an emergency or they are employed by the jurisdictional ambulance services.  In most cases it would require an argument to persuade a court that an NEPT officer falls within a relevant definition as they are not explicitly included. 

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.