New South Wales v Fahy

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal concerning a negligence claim brought by a police officer, Ms. Fahy, against the Crown (represented by the Commissioner of Police). Ms. Fahy alleged she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of attending to a stabbing victim without adequate support from her fellow officers. The core of the dispute was whether the Commissioner of Police had breached a duty of care owed to Ms. Fahy by failing to establish a system of work that would have provided her with support, and whether the actions or inactions of other police officers at the scene constituted a breach of duty.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the "Crown" or the Commissioner of Police owed a duty of care to Ms. Fahy, a police officer, in the circumstances of her attending to a severely injured victim. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was a breach of this duty by failing to implement a system of work that ensured officers were supported by colleagues when dealing with traumatic incidents, and whether the failure of nearby officers to provide assistance in the treatment room amounted to a breach of duty. The court was also asked to consider the foreseeability of the risk of injury to Ms. Fahy and whether the established test for breach of duty, as articulated in *Wyong Shire Council v Shirt*, should be reconsidered.

The majority of the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and ordering judgment for the defendant. The majority found that the Commissioner of Police had not breached any duty of care owed to Ms. Fahy. Their reasoning focused on the nature of police work, the specific circumstances of the incident, and the existing framework for police operations. The court concluded that the risk of psychiatric injury to Ms. Fahy was not reasonably foreseeable in a manner that would give rise to a breach of duty, and that the system of work in place was not demonstrably inadequate. The dissenting judges, however, would have dismissed the appeal.