The Queensland Police Service has been ordered to apologise and pay nearly $18,000 to an Australian Defence Force Reserve member after providing too much information about his Brisbane hotel arrest to the ADF.

The man was arrested in April 2017 after refusing to leave a Brisbane hotel and taken to the Brisbane Watchhouse. He was not in uniform at the time.

Police contacted an officer at RAAF Base Amberley. Max Mason-Hubers

After his Defence identification was found, the senior sergeant on duty at the watchhouse, following normal procedure, contacted the Royal Australian Air Force duty officer at Amberley and told them of the man's arrest.

The next day, another police officer gave more information about the man's arrest to a senior RAAF officer. That call was later found to have breached the Information Privacy Act 2009.

In a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision delivered last week, the man's complaint that the Queensland Police Service breached its obligations under the act was substantiated.

The QPS argued the disclosure was authorised under the Operational Procedural Manual used by police officers, and didn't breach privacy legislation.

Police also argued under the Defence Act, officers who arrested members of the ADF were expected to contact the relevant duty officer and provide information about the person charged.

The man was under obligation to report his arrest to his superiors regardless, police argued.

QCAT was told when the man first complained about his information being given to the ADF, QPS denied doing so and said the ADF had made contact, before later admitting an "unidentified police officer" had contacted the Defence duty officer.

The man took his complaint to the Office of the Information Commissioner and it was eventually agreed by all parties that a senior police sergeant had called ADF.

Sergeant Jason Trotter, who made the first call when the man was arrested, told QCAT he had contacted the ADF "on many occasions" in line with the police operational procedural manual.

The call Sergeant Trotter made went through to duty officer Dr Perkins, who was told the man was "refusing to answer questions".

The man's mental state was discussed and Dr Perkins later called back to tell police the ADF wouldn't be collecting the man.

He was bailed from the Brisbane Watchhouse that night and charges were later withdrawn and replaced with an infringement and fine, which he paid.

The next day, RAAF officer Wing Commander Deveney called the arresting officer, Constable Smith, directly to confirm the charges and details of the man's arrest.

Constable Smith said he had not given any further information to the Wing Commander during that call.

However QCAT member Richard Oliver found the conversation between the police officer and the Wing Commander "went further than what Constable Smith contends".

"I find that he did provide further information to Wing Commander Deveney which is that recorded in the incident report," Mr Oliver said.

Mr Oliver further dismissed the QPS argument that the man was under an obligation to report the incident regardless of whether they had provided information or not.

"This is a rather strange submission given that there is a positive obligation on the QPS not to make any such disclosures and to then try and cast some unspecified onus on the applicant that he had an obligation to inform the ADF which would absolve the QPS of any conduct which might be said to breach the information privacy principle," he said.

But Mr Oliver also found Sergeant Trotter was under an obligation from the police Operational Procedural Manual to inform the ADF.

The man argued that the police officer had provided more information than was required under Defence legislation, which specified the ADF should be informed of his service number, name and unit.

Mr Oliver found Sergeant Trotter was genuinely concerned about the man's mental state and the discussion was acceptable.

However, Mr Oliver found that the second phone call, between Constable Smith and Wing Commander Deveny the next day, did breach the Information Privacy Act, although Constable Smith was well intentioned.

The man argued he had suffered humiliation and embarrassment from the disclosure, and had sought psychological treatment.

He also claimed his personal information had been shared not just in his chain of command but also throughout the ADF legal team who had exchanged information with the QPS, furthering his distress.

Mr Oliver said there was no specific evidence to support that claim but agreed the entire process had impacted the man's mental health and he was entitled to compensation.

He found the man's complaint had been substantiated under the Information Privacy Act and directed the Commissioner of Police or a delegate to write a formal apology, and pay the man $17,806.75.