Quinn and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Quinn for a review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission concerning his claim for dental caries. The dispute centred on whether Mr Quinn's service in Cambodia between 17 November 1991 and 17 May 1992 constituted operational service for the purposes of the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (VEA), and whether his dental condition arose from that service. The decision was made by D. J. Morris SM.

The court was required to determine whether the material before it raised a hypothesis connecting Mr Quinn's dental condition with his service in Cambodia, and if so, whether a Statement of Principles was in force. It also needed to consider whether the hypothesis was reasonable, and finally, whether it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the dental caries did not arise from war-caused injury. The court adopted the four-step approach outlined in *Repatriation Commission v Deledio* (1998) 49 ALD 193 for assessing such claims.

The court found that while Mr Quinn and his colleagues were restricted in their movements and required to be accompanied by Khmer Rouge personnel when leaving their building in Pailin, this did not amount to being prisoners of war. This was because Mr Quinn had volunteered for the deployment, was aware of the nature of the posting through pre-deployment briefings, and had not fallen into the power of the enemy. The court noted that the applicant's representative had referred to the Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations, which corroborated the restrictions on movement. However, the court concluded that the circumstances did not meet the mandatory requirement of falling into the power of the enemy for the purposes of the Third Geneva Convention.

The decision under review was affirmed.