Woman took on detective who unlawfully told witness she was pregnant — and won

A woman who says she suffered life-changing stress and anxiety — and later, the death of one of her babies — after a Victoria Police officer unlawfully disclosed to a criminal investigation witness that she was pregnant is waiving her right to privacy and speaking out as part of her fight for accountability.

Joanna Adams was blindsided when, in 2021, she learned her husband Andrew Adams, a Victoria Police officer, had been arrested for using internal police systems to contact and instigate romantic and sexual relationships with vulnerable women he had met through his work.

Days later, a witness in the criminal investigation — one of her husband's accusers — tracked down Ms Adams and relayed some infuriating information: a detective sergeant on the case had told the witness that Ms Adams was seven weeks pregnant.

The detective would later argue it was reasonable in the circumstances to reveal the news of Ms Adams's pregnancy in order to progress the investigation. Ms Adams was having none of it.

"I had in fact only completed my first ultrasound that exact same day," she wrote in a submission to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). To learn that an accuser of her husband and others in her local community knew about her early pregnancy, she said, was "devastating to say the least".

VCAT last year ruled in Ms Adams's favour, with Senior Member Anita Smith finding Victoria Police unlawfully disclosed Ms Adams's health information in contravention of the Health Records Act and thus interfered with her privacy in breach of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. Ms Smith could not be satisfied, she wrote in her decision, that the detective sergeant who disclosed to the witness that Ms Adams was seven weeks pregnant "reasonably believed that it was reasonably necessary".

Now, after her husband was last week sentenced to five months' imprisonment and a 12-month community corrections order, having pleaded guilty to four counts of misconduct in public office, Ms Adams wants her story known. Her case is a pressing reminder, or perhaps a wake-up call for some, that even non-health services have important legal responsibilities for how they collect and disclose individuals' private health information.

For Victoria Police, which has spent the past five years trying to block Ms Adams's fight for justice using questionable legal tactics and an expensive barrister, it is an own goal: while trying to hold an officer accountable for breaking the law, they have, ironically, broken the law.

Police put up 'many smokescreens'

Awarding general damages of $28,000, Ms Smith noted Victoria Police had taken away the "joy" from what "should have been a joyous occasion" in Ms Adams's life, and that she had a right to announce her pregnancy to whomever she wanted, whenever she wanted: "The complainant's disclosure of her pregnancy to selected individuals [before her husband was arrested] does not diminish the shock to her that a possible accuser of her husband was made aware of a very early pregnancy in circumstances where she was acutely aware of the possibility of miscarriage."

While Ms Smith accepted that the death of one of Ms Adams's twins, born prematurely at 26 weeks, was unrelated to Victoria Police's behaviour, she said the circumstances of the disclosure would "complicate her grief about the loss of that child".

Ms Smith was also scathing of Victoria Police, noting they were "a party with model litigant responsibilities" that had argued defences that were "wrong in fact and law" and put "many smokescreens" in the way of Ms Adams being "vindicated".

"It is only the complainant's determination that has brought her to finally receive validation after a hearing," Ms Smith said. "The respondent's defence and submissions were largely centred upon the suspect and contain extraneous information that colour the complaint to the complainant's disadvantage."

Victoria Police lodged an appeal against the VCAT ruling but later abandoned it.

'I feel like they broke me'

Ms Adams told ABC News she was more angry at Victoria Police for disclosing her pregnancy than she was at her husband, including because she was, and still is, afraid of the witness and feared for her safety. She also believes the investigator, Detective Sergeant Craig Buttigieg of Professional Standards Command, used her "as bait" to secure the witness's cooperation.

"I was really angry at my husband, but I was really upset with the police for putting me in a very risky position," Ms Adams said. "It was very disappointing to be used as bait, to feel that you're not protected, not respected by Victoria Police. They just didn't care about me."

While it was daunting to face up to an agency as powerful and well-resourced as Victoria Police, Ms Adams said, she pursued her VCAT application in order to hold them to account. She wanted an apology, which she has not received; for Sergeant Buttigieg to be disciplined, which he hasn't; and to be compensated.

Still, the damages she was awarded were a small fraction of what she spent on legal fees, counselling and medical bills, she said, and she has not been able to work more than 10 hours per week due to ongoing stress. She also feels the death of one of her twin babies was at least partly caused by the anxiety she experienced after the detective disclosed her pregnancy.

"The stress Victoria Police put me through with the disclosure; the embarrassment, the humiliation. Even just looking at [their barrister] I was really disgusted and upset," said Ms Adams, who has since moved interstate because she no longer felt safe. "It's stressful thinking about going back to Victoria, it's stressful to see a police car or be near police officers … I have lost trust in the police, I have lost trust in the justice system … I feel like they broke me."

As for why she is speaking publicly about her case? "I want Victoria Police to be accountable," Ms Adams said. "I want people to know what they're facing because this has become a corrupt organisation. I want people to know that Professional Standards is not professional at all. They're not upholding their oath."

The defence

Ms Adams's matter was referred to VCAT when it became clear Victoria Police would not cooperate with the Health Complaints Commissioner's mediation process. Victoria Police initially argued Ms Adams's pregnancy was not "health information" for the purposes of the Health Records Act, though later conceded it was.

Appearing on behalf of Victoria Police, Sarala Fitzgerald SC mounted several arguments against Ms Adam's application. "We rely heavily on the fact that Detective Sergeant Buttigieg believed on reasonable grounds that the collection and disclosure of the information was necessary for the purposes of law enforcement, namely the investigation of criminal offending by Senior Constable Adams," Ms Fitzgerald told a VCAT hearing last June.

Sergeant Buttigieg disclosed Ms Adams's pregnancy to the witness while she was making a statement, Ms Fitzgerald said. The witness said the accused had told her he'd had a vasectomy, ostensibly to reassure her that she couldn't fall pregnant by him. Sergeant Buttigieg then told her Ms Adams was seven weeks pregnant — information he had learned after arresting Mr Adams — to give an example of the extent to which the accused had lied to her, to encourage her to assist the investigation.

Further, Victoria Police didn't collect or use Ms Adams's health information for the purposes of the Act, Ms Fitzgerald argued, because it was "essentially information that entered the detective sergeant's head" and was not "recorded in a document that was under the control of Victoria Police itself".

Ms Fitzgerald also argued any impact on Ms Adams was not caused by Sergeant Buttigieg disclosing that she was pregnant: "Any stress has been, we say, solely caused by the discovery of what was alleged to have [been] done by her husband."

Plus, Ms Adams and her husband had shared the news that she could be or was pregnant with a few other people prior to the disclosure, Ms Fitzgerald told VCAT — therefore, she said, "the pregnancy information was not, in fact, being … kept confidential by the couple".

'They really threw the book at her'

Jeremy King, principal lawyer and head of the police and prisons team at Robinson Gill, said it was important to highlight that Ms Adams was self-represented while Victoria Police deployed a barrister.

"They really threw the book at her and argued every possible technical defence they could think of, as opposed to grappling with the central issue, which was that her private health information was unlawfully and inappropriately used by an officer," Mr King said.

Victoria Police should review their policies in light of VCAT's decision, he added, and revisit Ms Adams's 2021 complaint about the incident — which police dismissed after considering whether it would constitute the offence of unauthorised disclosure of police information under the Victoria Police Act.

"People like Joanna shouldn't be collateral damage, they still have rights. And health information isn't something that Victoria Police should be able to weaponise or utilise in an investigative process," Mr King said.

"The real tragedy of this case is that … in the course of trying to bring an officer to account for harming women, [Victoria Police have] harmed another woman."

The health complaints commissioner, adjunct professor Bernice Redley, said she was unable to comment on the specifics of the case due to confidentiality obligations under section 90 of the Health Records Act. She acknowledged Ms Adams's willingness to provide consent for her to do so, but said the obligations were "broader than the consent of an individual and limit the HCC's ability to publicly disclose information that relates to matters involving other parties or organisations, or information obtained through the complaints process".

"The HCC encourages anyone who holds health information to understand and comply with their obligations under the Health Records Act, including obligations relating to the collection, use and disclosure of health information," Ms Redley said. "These obligations extend beyond traditional healthcare settings and can apply to entities that are not health service providers but handle health information, such as employers."

A Victoria Police spokesperson told ABC News that as there were further legal matters afoot it would be "inappropriate" to comment.