That’s the heading of an article in The Conversation (14 May 2026) written by Erin Smith and Cameron Anderson (and I note here that I too have co-authored with Erin see A new publication (November 14, 2016)).
In this article they report on research about the extent of violence directed toward paramedics and the possible underlying causes of this behaviour. They finish the article with a list under the heading ‘So, what needs to change?’ Unfortunately their list of what needs to change is not supported by any referenced research.
One of their suggestions is governments should:
- strengthen legal protections for paramedics, by ensuring assaults carry meaningful, enforceable penalties and intoxication or mental health crises are not routinely used to excuse violence.
There is no explanation as to why that is going to work. In a recent case Director of Public Prosecutions v Bader-McDowell [2026] VCC 594 (4 May 2026) Rozen J sentenced the defendant to 18 months imprisonment for his assault on a Victorian paramedic. He was also sentenced for a string of other offences, also assaults, that took place a week later. The total sentence was 3 years and 11 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.
Sentencing was and is a complicated process requiring judges to weigh up many factors. But the question is would paramedics be any safer if the sentence for the assault on the paramedic had been 2 years or 3? Do you think the next person who assaults a paramedic is going to stop and say ‘oh hang on, Bader-McDowell got 18 months for something similar, so no I’m not going to do this?’
Sending people to prison may be necessary and sometimes the only relevant penalty but as I’ve argued before, increasing sentencing is not the same as increasing legal protection – as sentencing only occurs after the offence has occurred – and there is no evidence that increasing sentences actually reduces crimes.
Putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff doesn’t stop people falling from the top; increasing the penalty for people after they have assaulted a paramedic doesn’t stop the paramedic being assaulted.
For related posts see
- Responding to calls for mandatory sentencing (April 3, 2016);
- No gaol time for defendants who assaulted Victorian Paramedic (May 18, 2018);
- Mandatory gaol terms (or not) for assaulting police and emergency service workers in New Zealand (May 29, 2018);
- Mandatory prison sentences – offering paramedics a placebo rather than protection(August 3, 2018); and
- Controversial sentence for offender guilty of assault on paramedics (March 27, 2019).
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.
Australian Emergency Law 
Hi Michael, thank you for engaging with our article. I appreciate the criticism and note your statement that sentencing is complex.
I will point out that we weren’t necessarily advocating for increasing sentences, for the reasons you’ve pointed out; rather that inconsistencies such as that identified in the aftermath of the recent paramedic stabbing in Melbourne are identified and managed where appropriate to ensure meaningful penalties exist for those cases where they are necessary.
Kind regards,
Cameron Anderson
Thanks Cameron and for the link to the story about the ‘loophole’. The definition of emergency worker or the like in the legislation is often very convoluted – see https://australianemergencylaw.com/2026/05/07/non-emergency-patient-transport-and-special-offences-on-health-and-emergency-workers/. It would be good if that were clarified in every jurisdiction, not just Victoria, so it applied to all emergency workers at work and in their uniform and not just when providing emergency care.