See v The Commissioner of Police

In the case of See v The Commissioner of Police, the plaintiff, a police officer, sought to claim compensation for an infirmity he suffered as a result of his employment. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff’s chronic major depressive disorder was caused by actions taken during his employment, specifically related to an incident where he was the shift supervisor on a night shift when he did not follow up on a report of a missing and potentially endangered young woman. The case was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's infirmity was caused by actions taken in the course of his employment, specifically in relation to his discipline and performance appraisal, and whether his police service was a substantial contributing factor to his condition. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Ombudsman invoked the correct powers in making her report and whether the Commissioner of Police and the Ombudsman were independent in their actions concerning the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff's infirmity was indeed caused by actions taken in the course of his employment. It concluded that the plaintiff's inaction in following up on the report of the missing woman, which was influenced by operational directives, contributed to the adverse psychological reaction he experienced from subsequent investigations, disciplinary action, and media coverage. The court emphasised that the plaintiff's personal susceptibility to risk and the reasonable actions taken by the defendant with respect to discipline and performance appraisal were key factors in the development of his condition. The court also held that the Ombudsman correctly invoked her powers in making her report and that there was sufficient independence between the Commissioner and the Ombudsman in their respective actions.

The court ordered the decision of the defendant made on 19 August 2014 to be set aside, determined that the plaintiff's chronic major depressive disorder was caused by his having been hurt on duty, and set the deemed date of injury as 8 April 2009. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs.