Mr Clee said the consent requirements could be circumvented where it was either not desirable or not practicable to gain authorisation from the person, and there was a serious or imminent threat to public safety.
He said there was no evidence of any violence or lack of co-operation by Urlich who was talking to police in a free and frank manner. "There was not a serious or imminent threat to public safety."
The car was written off, Urlich's parents had arrived at the crash scene and it was clear they wanted to take him home.
Mr Clee said the ambulance officer demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the privacy code. She had no basis to believe that Urlich would be driving again imminently.
Urlich had passed a blood/alcohol test and been given a ticket, and it was not until police were told about the cannabis that they decided to do the drug impairment test. If the cannabis use statement had not been made to police, there would have been no basis for an impairment test, he said.
Mr Clee said that unlike drink driving, police did not have the right to do an impairment test - it had to be based on a reasonable belief.
Mr Jenson said the police officer had ample basis on which to conduct the test. There had been a crash and the officer had been advised of suspicions by the ambulance officer. "There are no errors of law and no basis to vacate the plea."
It was permissible to disclose information if exceptions arose. He said the ambulance officer had found Urlich to be vague, nervous, jittery, tearful and with glazed eyes - that was the context in which the officer was informed he used cannabis.
Mr Jenson said it was not desirable for the ambulance officer to tell Urlich that she would be telling the police. Urlich was in an unpredictable state. "This would not be an unfamiliar situation for an ambulance officer."
Requiring consent could inflame the situation and it was not practicable. "There needs to be an air of reality.''
Mr Jenson said the ambulance officer had concerns with Urlich driving again. There were no guarantees of what would happen once Urlich's parents got him home. It was entirely appropriate for the officer to raise these issues with police who had responsibility for public safety.
Public safety exceptions to the code needed to be dealt with quickly. Box ticking was not an appropriate or realistic way to deal with it. When there was a serious and imminent threat, the only way to deal with it was to tell the police, he said.
Mr Jenson said vacating the plea would put ambulance officers in an impossible situation and put the public at risk if officers were constrained in these situations.
There was nothing in the police job sheets to support the suggestion that the police inquiry was at an end when the ambulance officer piped up about the cannabis. "Inquiries were still ongoing."
Judge Cameron reserved his decision.
