PETER GLANVILLE HARRIS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 631

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No 2008/1177

VETERANS'       APPEALS        DIVISION )
Re PETER GLANVILLE HARRIS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Brigadier C. Ermert, Member

Dr R. McRae, Member

Date25 August 2009

PlaceMelbourne

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

(sgd) C. Ermert

Member


VETERANS’ AFFAIRS ‑ operational service ‑ diagnosed conditions of alcohol abuse, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, cardiomyopathy, peripheral neuropathy and gout – diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse – whether other conditions war-caused - four stages of Deledio reasoning ‑ hypothesis connecting conditions with operational service ‑ Statements of Principles ‑ whether hypothesis fits Statement of Principles – alcohol consumption not war-caused – hypertension not war-caused – as a consequence other conditions not war-caused – decision affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 120(1), 120(3), 120A, 196A, 196B

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622

Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200

Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690

Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140

Repatriation v Tuitte (1993) 39 FCR 540

Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) 222 CLR 115

REASONS FOR DECISION

25 August 2009

Brigadier C. Ermert, Member

Dr R. McRae, Member

INTRODUCTION

1.       Mr Peter Glanville Harris, the applicant, graduated from the Royal Military College, Duntroon (Duntroon), in December 1944 and was posted to the Australian Army Service Corps in Geelong.  While there he started to drink alcohol regularly at the Officers’ Mess.  While at Geelong Mr Harris learned of the death of Lieutenant Cornish, one of his former Duntroon classmates, but a man with whom he did not maintain contact.  Lieutenant Cornish was killed while attempting to dislodge a bomb which had become jammed in the barrel of a mortar.  Mr Harris claims to have been shocked and horrified as he was able to visualise what had occurred.  As a result Mr Harris increased his consumption of alcohol. 

2.       Mr Harris was subsequently transferred to the Atherton Tablelands and later to Wewak in Papua New Guinea.  He continued to have ready access to alcohol during that time.  While in Wewak Mr Harris was apprehensive because of his proximity to the Japanese and a concern that Japanese soldiers who had not surrendered remained in the hills and may have represented an ongoing danger.  On no occasion did Mr Harris see the enemy.  After the end of hostilities Mr Harris served in Kure, Japan, with the Occupation Forces.  While there he moderated his consumption of alcohol, he continued to drink heavily in the evenings after duty.  While in Japan Mr Harris visited Hiroshima and was disturbed by the sight of the outline of human buttocks on a stone.  He was horrified by the thought of people melting away by the heat of the nuclear explosion.  By the end of his period of service Mr Harris was drinking daily and excessively. 

3.       On…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read PETER GLANVILLE HARRIS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2009] AATA 631
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peter Glanville Harris and Repatriation Commission involves a dispute regarding a pension claim for the purpose of assessing the severity of Harris' war injuries. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia for judicial review. The primary issue before the court was whether the Repatriation Commission was correct in its decision to deny Harris' claim for a disability pension, particularly in light of evidence submitted regarding the severity of his injuries.

The court had to determine whether the Repatriation Commission appropriately applied the relevant statutory provisions and whether there was sufficient evidence to support its decision. The key legal issues included the interpretation of statutory criteria for awarding a disability pension and the adequacy of the evidence presented to substantiate the severity of Harris' injuries. The court also had to consider whether the Commission's decision was unreasonable or flawed by some procedural irregularity.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Repatriation Commission had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the Commission's decision was supported by the evidence and that there was no procedural irregularity that would warrant overturning the decision. The evidence presented, while indicating significant injuries, did not meet the threshold for a disability pension under the applicable legislation. The court concluded that the Commission's assessment of the severity of Harris' injuries was reasonable and based on proper consideration of the evidence. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.