Stack v Chief of Army

This case concerned an application by Mr Stack against the Chief of the Army, heard by Judge Jarrett. Mr Stack sought to challenge a decision regarding his administrative discharge from the Army in the early 1970s, arguing that he should have been discharged on the grounds of invalidity or incapacity due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The central dispute revolved around whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias in the decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court were whether Colonel Wells's comments indicated bias, and if so, whether this apprehension of bias could be attributed to Colonel Stothart, the actual decision-maker. The court was required to determine if a hypothetical fair-minded layperson, fully informed of the proceedings, might reasonably apprehend that Colonel Wells did not bring an impartial mind to the decision. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether Colonel Stothart's decision, which was informed by various reports and advices, was tainted by any such apprehension of bias, particularly given the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting Mr Stack's claim of psychological distress at the time of his discharge.

The court reasoned that while Colonel Wells's comments, particularly in his draft Minute concerning invalidity considerations for mental health conditions, expressed a particular approach to assessing retrospective claims for PTSD, they did not demonstrate actual bias. The court found that Colonel Wells was not the decision-maker, and there was no evidence of actual bias on the part of Colonel Stothart. The critical antecedent finding upon which Colonel Stothart's decision was based, namely the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence of psychological symptoms, was found to be accurate. The court accepted that Colonel Wells's views, even if expressed in notations on documents, did not logically connect to any deviation by Colonel Stothart from deciding the application on its merits, especially as there was no suggestion that Colonel Stothart saw these specific documents.

Mr Stack's claim on the ground of apprehended bias failed. The court found no basis for attributing an apprehension of bias to Colonel Stothart, as the evidence did not demonstrate a logical connection between Colonel Wells's views and any potential deviation by Colonel Stothart from deciding the application on its merits.