Patrech v State of New South Wales

The appeal in *Patrech v State of New South Wales* concerned a police officer, the appellant, who alleged that the police service breached its duty of care to him by negligently delaying his transfer from Tamworth following threats made against his life by a civilian, Laidlaw. The appellant argued that the trial judge had misapprehended his case regarding the breach of duty. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in his approach and conclusion regarding the alleged breach of duty of care by the police service.

The central legal issue was whether the police service breached its duty of care to the appellant by failing to adequately respond to his reports of threats made by Laidlaw and his resulting anxiety. This involved considering whether psychiatric injury to the appellant was reasonably foreseeable and, if so, what a reasonable response by the police service would have entailed, taking into account the magnitude of the risk, the probability of its occurrence, and the expense, difficulty, and inconvenience of taking alleviating action. The court also considered the proper analysis of medical and other evidence in assessing the breach of duty.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had misapprehended the appellant's case concerning the breach of duty. The trial judge's findings on the medical evidence, which led to a rejection of the appellant's claim for injury, did not address the core of the appellant's negligence claim, which was the alleged failure to transfer him promptly in response to the threats. The court applied the principles from *Wyong Shire Council v Shirt* regarding the assessment of a breach of duty of care, emphasizing the need to consider foreseeability of risk and the reasonable response of a defendant. The court noted that there was evidence of observable signs of severe stress in the appellant, which suggested that psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict for the respondent, and ordered that the matter be remitted to the District Court for a rehearing. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, with the costs of the first trial to abide the outcome of the remitted hearing.