Horwood and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by Mrs Gloria Horwood for a review of the Repatriation Commission's decision to refuse her claim for a war widow's pension. The applicant's husband, Mr John Horwood, who had served in the Australian Navy during a period considered operational service under the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth), died from hypertension. The applicant contended that her husband's death was war-caused, arguing that his service led to his consumption of alcohol, which in turn caused his hypertension and ultimately his death from ischaemic heart disease.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was a causal connection between Mr Horwood's operational service and his consumption of alcohol, and consequently, whether there was a reasonable hypothesis connecting his death from hypertension with his operational service. The Tribunal was required to determine if the material before it satisfied the requirements of the relevant Statements of Principles (SoPs) for hypertension and ischaemic heart disease, and if so, whether it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his death was not war-caused.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Repatriation Commission v Deledio*, which outline a four-step process for assessing claims involving operational service. This process requires the Tribunal to first consider if the material points to a hypothesis connecting the death with service, then ascertain if an applicable SoP is in force. If an SoP is in force, the Tribunal must determine if the hypothesis fits the SoP's "template." Only at the final stage does the Tribunal consider whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death was not war-caused, at which point factual findings are made. In this case, the applicant conceded that she would not press the ischaemic heart disease aspect of her claim, and the respondent conceded that Mr Horwood likely met the criteria for hypertension under the relevant SoP regarding alcohol consumption. However, the respondent argued that there was no material demonstrating a causal connection between Mr Horwood's service and his commencement of drinking alcohol, citing his statement that he began drinking due to peer pressure and referring to an advisory suggesting military service might have the opposite effect on alcohol habituation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had not established beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Horwood's death was not war-caused. While the applicant had not established a causal link between Mr Horwood's service and his alcohol consumption, the respondent had also failed to discharge its onus of proving the death was not war-caused. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decisions and substituted a decision in favour of the applicant, granting the war widow's pension.