Publication of health information by the NCAT

[Ballistix]

Is anyone else concerned about the publication of personal health information about shooters and their families in NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal decisions? i.e. NSW appears to be the only jurisdiction that doesn't routinely protect applicants for review of firearms licence decisions who are alleged to have mental health conditions.

There are heaps of decisions where they seem to list in extensive detail personal, often very embarrassing, mental health and minor traffic offences or summary offences in a way that in other types of matters seems to be protected. It seems to go beyond what is reasonable.

In the ACT, their tribunal has a practice that where an application for review of a firearms licence decision involves mental health concerns, the decision should not be made public in a way which identifies an applicant as its subject. Likewise in QLD, their legislation makes reference to non-publication orders to avoid mental health.

In SA, they have an Anonymisation of Decisions Policy and part of their legislation de-identifies and allocates a randomly selected pseudonym for applicants for review of firearms decisions involving mental health information.

The Victorian Tribunal makes orders under the Open Courts Act to prohibit any information from proceedings identifying an applicant with material mental health concerns. Similarly the WA Act provides for non-publication orders to avoid endangering the mental health of any person. Its practice appears to be to make orders where an application for review of a firearms decision is alleged to have a mental health condition. In JG and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2022] WASAT 65 the Tribunal specifically stated that they don't want to deter other applicants for firearms licences from seeking review in the Tribunal because they fear that issues concerning their mental fitness to hold a licence will be laid bare to the public without appropriate protection of their identity

NSW is an outlier. There effect of the decisions being published is to dissuade applicants from seeking review because of public opprobrium and shame attached to the process, even though they are otherwise fit to hold a licence.

[Wapiti]

This cannot be the case surely. Do you have a specific incident to put forward to show others that this is the case? No names, no personal details of course.

[Bugman]

mmmm. Where exactly to you go to read this information? (published decisions) Or is it information that you have to request access?
Not doubting your comments, but I have not come across this before.

[Ballistix]

mmmm. Where exactly to you go to read this information? (published decisions) Or is it information that you have to request access?
Not doubting your comments, but I have not come across this before.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/

I don't want to name any individuals. But from one recent example (that I have deidentified):

the Applicant has taken various psychotropic medications since at least since 2018 and that the dosage has fluctuated over time

the Applicant routinely sought treatment from various General Practitioners for his mental health issues

the Applicant has previously relapsed and succumbed to further periods of depression

the Applicant has previously engaged in regular (and, in some instances, weekly) sessions with his psychologists including with XX YY between around October 2019 and May 2020, and 8 February 2021 and June 2021

In Mr YY's report dated 11 November 2019, he wrote "I told [the Applicant] about the concerns of potential self-harm raised with me by his workers compensation insurance case manager on Friday afternoon. XXX assured me that he was not at risk of self-harm and guaranteed me that he would contact me directly and immediately if that changed in any way'”.

Dr XX YY's consultation notes dated 18 January 2021 state "depression — relapse", "suicidal ideation no active plans" and "considering psychiatric r/v (review)”. Dr YY's consultation notes dated 29 January 2021 state "depression chest pain last night, neg troponin, palpitations, presented to AA Hospital, no cardiac concerns, attributed to anxiety” and that the Applicant was having difficulty arranging a psychiatric review.

Report of XXX YYY, clinical psychologist, dated 29 September 2021 which states "XXX reported recently experiencing a significant deterioration in mental health which included emotional overwhelm, feelings of hopelessness, and suicidal ideation. To his credit XXX pulled himself out of this poor mental place with a concerted effort and routine involving exercise, meditation, and connecting with nature. XXX exhibits a strong internal locus of control which is certainly one of his strengths. Yesterday XXX reported that his mood had improved significantly from its lowest point and that he had not experienced any suicidal ideation for about one week”.

In his report of 19 May 2022 Dr XXX YYY, Consultant Psychiatrist, wrote that "[the Applicant] still experiences fleeting self-harming ideation, although no active intent. On the day of interview, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score was 29 which is in the high-moderate range of depressive symptomatology”.

[Wapiti]

You'd think that this was a serious breach of privacy of that individual by making public their name when describing their own private medical history,
I know for a fact that if a General Practitioner deliberately (even accidentally) released clinical information about a patient, their Medical Legal team will be going to get a whole lot of work, and possibly even deregistered.

The individual cases of mental illness and their effects both by law and ethically on a person and possible restrictions on their ability to hold firearms are a different matter entirely to personal privacy.

Think twice people, before sharing information about your psychological state. You don't have any "rights" to own firearms, only privileges granted to you by the masters you serve.

[straightshooter]

It is my understanding that in NSW (at least) there are a number of instances of illnesses that when presented to medical practitioners (not just GP's) must be reported to the appropriate state entity.
A common one is 'extreme depression' which must be reported to the police.
I know of one example where a shooter was involved in a motor vehicle accident where he was not at fault and was reporting injury symptoms due to the accident that could be understood as severe depression although he was likely 'gilding the lily' to enhance any potential compo payout. His guns got taken.
The moral of the story is think of the consequences before you open your mouth.

[on_one_wheel]

It's surprising that someone with depression would be considered unfit to hold firearms.
It's highly unlikely they'll harm others and if they're
genuinely suicidal a lack of firearms isn't going to stop them.

[Ballistix]

It's surprising that someone with depression would be considered unfit to hold firearms.
It's highly unlikely they'll harm others and if they're
genuinely suicidal a lack of firearms isn't going to stop them.

It is my understanding that in NSW (at least) there are a number of instances of illnesses that when presented to medical practitioners (not just GP's) must be reported to the appropriate state entity.
A common one is 'extreme depression' which must be reported to the police.
I know of one example where a shooter was involved in a motor vehicle accident where he was not at fault and was reporting injury symptoms due to the accident that could be understood as severe depression although he was likely 'gilding the lily' to enhance any potential compo payout. His guns got taken.
The moral of the story is think of the consequences before you open your mouth.

This is also interesting because the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry says there is no greater risk of violence (including violence with a firearm) for someone with depression than a normal member of the community. It has to be a form of irrational disability discrimination by the Firearms Registry.

[Ballistix]

The individual cases of mental illness and their effects both by law and ethically on a person and possible restrictions on their ability to hold firearms are a different matter entirely to personal privacy.

Yeah, but open justice yields to other considerations all the time. e.g., in the 'Commercial Court' of the Equity Division of the NSW Supreme Court, some commercial in confidence information is suppressed to retain advantage or prevent the loss of what the present action is intending to protect. This sort of information is also protected in the NCAT for guardianship applications, and applications for access to health records (for example via a review of a declined GIPA request) about an episode of care in a health facility... This I suppose was my point, in other types of matters the information is kept confidential - and other jurisdictions consider that it is not necessary to identify a person subject to a firearms licence where there is the risk of harm from publication of their mental health information by the respective Tribunal, yet NSW is an outlier (as far as I can see) only for firearms matters. It makes no sense and is an aberration.

The publication of such detailed and personal information seems to be both unnecessary and unjust. The effect is to discourage people with otherwise arguable claims from seeking review lest their personal information become public knowledge.