Reitano v Commissioner of Police

This matter concerned an appeal by a senior constable (the appellant) against a decision of the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal. The dispute arose from the appellant's claim for compensation for psychological injury, which he alleged commenced on 15 February 1996, following an adverse mention at the Police Royal Commission and his subsequent standing down and suspension from duty. The core of the appeal was whether the Tribunal had failed to determine whether the action taken by the Commissioner of Police was authorised by a relevant statutory provision, specifically section 11A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal erred by failing to determine whether the Commissioner's actions in standing down and suspending the appellant were authorised by section 11A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*, and whether the question of whether a statutory provision applied was a question of law that could not be deferred to lay opinion. The court also considered whether the Tribunal had adequately addressed the basis upon which the appellant was suspended, including whether there was reasonable cause to believe his conduct justified disciplinary action, and whether the suspension was reasonable given potentially tainted evidence.

The court reasoned that the question of whether a statutory provision authorises a particular action is a question of law. It found that the Tribunal had not adequately determined whether section 11A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* applied to the Commissioner's actions, nor had it properly considered the factual basis for the appellant's suspension. The court concluded that these were integral to the issues raised by the appellant and that the Tribunal was best placed to make the necessary factual findings and legal determinations.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal for redetermination according to law. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.