Woodroofe and Comcare (Compensation)

[2024] AATA 3611

Woodroofe and Comcare (Compensation) [2024] AATA 3611 (9 October 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):     2022/8188 & 2023/0164

Re:Randall Woodroofe

APPLICANT

AndComcare

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member W Frost

Date:9 October 2024

Place:Canberra

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

..................[SGD]........................................

Member W Frost

Catchwords

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – definition of ‘injury’ under subsection 5A(1) SRC Act – definition of ‘disease’ under subsection 5B(1) – disease suffered by an employee – disease suffered as a result of ‘reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable matter’ – no liability to pay compensation under section 14 of SRC Act

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss 37, 43
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 4, 5A, 5B, 14

Cases

Beasley and Comcare [2012] AATA 411
Comcare v Drinkwater [2018] FCAFC 62
Comcare v Martinez (No 2) (2013) 212 FCR 272

Comcare v Power (2015) 238 FCR 187
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21
Radulovic and Comcare (2010) AATA 777
Martin and Comcare [2024] AATA 3113
Moradi v Comcare [2024] FCA 812
Thappa and Comcare [2013] AATA 629

Wilson and Comcare [2010] AATA 396.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member W Frost

9 October 2024

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant, Mr Randall Woodroofe, applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) for review of two decisions made by the Respondent, Comcare, declining liability to pay him compensation under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) in respect of mental health conditions.[1]

   [1] Exhibit 1, pages 1-5 and Exhibit 2, pages 1-5.

2. The Tribunal has considered all documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) and the additional documents taken into evidence in these proceedings, together with the parties’ submissions.[2] For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decisions under review. This means that Mr Woodroofe’s applications to the Tribunal are unsuccessful and Comcare is not liable to pay him compensation under the SRC Act.

   [2] Exhibits 1 to 10.

   ISSUES

3. The Tribunal had to determine the following issues in these proceedings:

   (a)whether Mr Woodroofe suffered from an ‘ailment’ or an ‘aggravation of such an ailment’, as defined by subsection 5B(1) of the SRC Act;

   (b)if so, whether Mr Woodroofe’s ‘ailment’ was ‘contributed to, to a significant degree’, by his employment with the AFP, as required by subsection 5B(1) of the SRC Act in order to constitute a ‘disease’;

   (c)if so, whether Mr Woodroofe’s ‘disease’ was suffered as a result of ‘reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner’ in respect of his employment and therefore not an ‘injury’ under subsection 5A(1) of the SRC Act; and

   (d)whether Comcare is liable to pay compensation to Mr Woodroofe for an ‘injury’ pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.

   BACKGROUND

4. Mr Woodroofe is 56 years old.[3]

   [3] Exhibit 1, page 2. 

5. Since 2012, Mr Woodroofe has been employed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP).[4] At the relevant time in 2021, Mr Woodroofe was a member of the AFP’s ACT Policing COVID-19 Taskforce working as a police liaison officer at ACT Health’s ‘Health Emergency Coordination Centre’ (or HECC).  

   [4] Exhibit 1, page 786; Exhibit 2, pages 13 and 55

6. On 24 November 2021, Mr Woodroofe submitted a Workers’ Compensation Claim Form to Comcare in relation to a condition described as an ‘Adjustment Disorder with Anxious and Depressed Mood’ by Mr Matthew Taylor, Psychologist, in an accompanying report dated 15 November 2021.[5] Mr Taylor stated that the ‘stressor’ for Mr Woodroofe’s condition comprised meetings he attended on 10 and 11 September 2021 and the communications he received from colleagues following those meetings, including the requirement to return to his substantive rank with ACT Policing.[6] In the claim form, Mr Woodroofe stated that he first noticed his symptoms or injury at 11.52am on 11 September 2021 and first sought medical treatment on 5 October 2021.[7]

   [5] Exhibit 1, pages 7-16.

   [6] Ibid., page 14.

   [7] Ibid., pages 9-10.

7. On 21 January 2022, Comcare made a determination accepting liability under the SRC Act for what it described as Mr Woodroofe’s ‘adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features’, sustained on 5 October 2021.[8] Comcare was satisfied that Mr Woodroofe’s condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the AFP and that no exclusions under the SRC Act applied to his claim.[9]

   [8] Ibid., pages 77-80.

   [9] Ibid., page 79.

8. In March 2022, three members of the AFP, being Ms Naomi Binstead, Mr Brett Booth and Mr Ben Willis, requested reconsideration of Comcare’s determination accepting liability under the SRC Act.[10] The AFP also made a separate request for reconsideration of the determination.[11]

   [10] Ibid., pages 86-88.

   [11] Ibid., page 95.

9. On 23 September 2022, Comcare revoked its determination and declined liability for Mr Woodroofe’s ‘adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood’, because it found that that condition resulted from ‘reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner’ in respect of his employment.[12]

   [12] Ibid., pages 99-108.  

10. On 6 October 2022, Mr Woodroofe applied to the Tribunal for review of Comcare’s decision declining him compensation under the SRC Act (2022 Proceeding).[13]

    [13] Ibid., pages 1-5.

11. On 15 November 2022, Mr Woodroofe submitted a Workers’ Compensation Claim to Comcare in relation to ‘Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’ (PTSD), said to have first been noticed on 11 September 2021.[14]

    [14] Exhibit 2, pages 7-14.

12. On 25 November 2022, Comcare made a determination declining liability to pay Mr Woodroofe compensation under section 14 of the SRC Act in respect of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), because it was not satisfied that he had an ailment that had not already been determined by the earlier claim the subject of the 2022 Proceeding.[15]

    [15] Ibid., pages 55-58.

13. On 4 January 2023, following Mr Woodroofe’s request for reconsideration, Comcare affirmed its determination declining liability to pay him compensation under the SRC Act for PTSD and MDD.[16]

    [16] Ibid., pages 60-69.   

14. On 11 January 2023, Mr Woodroofe applied to the Tribunal for review of Comcare’s decision affirming the determination declining liability to pay compensation for PTSD and MDD (2023 Proceeding).[17]

    [17] Ibid., pages 1-5.

    LEGISLATION

15. Subsection 14(1) of the SRC Act provides:

    Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.

16. Section 5A of the SRC Act states that:

    (1)In this Act:

    injury means:

    (a)a disease suffered by an employee; or

    (b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or

    (c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;

    but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment.

    (2)For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following:

    (a)   a reasonable appraisal of the employee’s performance;

    (b)   a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;

    (c)   a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee’s employment;

    (d)   a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;

    (e)   anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);

    (f)    anything reasonable done in connection with the employee’s failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.  [emphasis in original]

17. For the purposes of applying subsection 5A(1)(a) of the SRC Act in relation to a ‘disease suffered by an employee’, section 5B of the SRC Act regarding the definition of ‘disease’ states that:

    (1)   In this Act:

    disease means:

    (a) an ailment suffered by an employee; or

    (b) an aggravation of such an ailment;

    that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.

    (2)   In determining whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by an employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee, the following matters may be taken into account:

    (a)the duration of the employment;

    (b)the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment;

    (c)any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;

    (d)any activities of the employee not related to the employment;

    (e)any other matters affecting the employee’s health.

    This subsection does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.

    (3)   In this Act:

    significant degree means a degree that is substantially more than material. [emphasis in original]

18. Section 4 of the SRC Act defines ‘ailment’ to mean ‘any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development)’. It also provides that ‘aggravation’ includes ‘acceleration or recurrence’.

    EVIDENCE

    Lay evidence

    Mr Woodroofe

19. The Tribunal has considered the three written statements made by Mr Woodroofe dated 8 December 2021, 30 October 2022 and 23 February 2023.[18] Mr Woodroofe gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing and confirmed adherence to his statements.

    [18] Exhibit 1, pages 17-22, Exhibit 2, pages 23-39 and Exhibit 4, pages 81-90.

20. At the time of his workers’ compensation claim which was the subject of the 2022 Proceeding, Mr Woodroofe was the liaison officer, Acting Sergeant, embedded with ACT Health, representing ACT Policing. He commenced the role in March 2021 on a six-week transfer basis. It was due to finish in April 2021, but because of the unknowns of the COVID-19 pandemic there was no certainty about how long the Taskforce would be required. Initially the role was at Mr Woodroofe’s substantive level with the AFP, but by the time he left it attracted a higher remuneration and rank.

21. In relation to the first incident which led to his claimed injury, Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that on Friday, 10 September 2021, he was asked to represent ACT Policing in inspecting a proposed, more secure, quarantine site with many stakeholders and to provide any advice, if asked, from the police perspective. The following day, Saturday, 11 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe attended a meeting at ACT Health to give input with other stakeholders on the facility. It was a hybrid meeting with Mr Woodroofe attending in-person. After it concluded, Mr Woodroofe had ‘a large number of missed calls’ from Ms Binstead, who had also attended the meeting. He returned the call, whereby ‘she just started speaking extremely aggressively’, said he ‘had no right to speak’ at the meeting, she was the one to speak, and he should have ‘deferred to her and said nothing’. Mr Woodroofe said that Ms Binstead’s ‘aggressiveness’ did not make ‘any logical sense’, it was ‘upsetting’, ‘confusing’, and ‘really shook me up’. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he subsequently told Mr Booth during a telephone call that he was ‘not coping very well’ after what ‘just happened’, was ‘not coping with this sort of treatment’ and would take a ‘mental health day’ the next day and think about what had happened. Mr Woodroofe said that Mr Booth was neither supportive nor unsupportive. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he took a day off work on 12 September 2021, but did not recall whether he worked the following day, 13 September 2021 and said it was subject to his roster.

22. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that Mr Booth had been attempting to contact him that week.  Mr Woodroofe said that the phone calls and messages ‘didn’t stop’ from the time he ‘woke up’; it was ‘constant’. He thought he was ‘probably’ contacted by Mr Booth.

23. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that, on Friday, 17 September 2021, he believed he started work at 8am, after leaving home at around 6.30am or 7am. He left work around 8pm that day, therefore working at least four hours overtime, because he was ‘required’ to do so. Mr Woodroofe returned home and ate dinner with his then wife. He noticed a message in a group chat on his telephone from a colleague and replied. Mr Woodroofe said he then received a ‘very aggressive phone call’ from Mr Booth who was ‘speaking very strangely’, ‘aggressively’ and swearing, including about Mr Woodroofe not replying to him during the day. Mr Woodroofe said it was ‘upsetting to remember’ that interaction. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that Mr Booth accused him of being ‘drunk’. He was ‘so confused’ about what was happening; he had worked all day, resolved an issue for the team and was being ‘chastised aggressively again’, which was ‘very upsetting’. Mr Woodroofe alleged that Mr Booth told him he was ‘concerned about your responses’, to which Mr Woodroofe replied that he was ‘concerned about your questions’, which were ‘not making any sense’. He claimed that Mr Booth screamed ‘stand down or something like that’, which was not something they would say to each other, and ended the call. Mr Woodroofe spoke to his wife about that call and said it ‘didn’t make any logical sense’ to him.

24. Mr Woodroofe spoke to Mr Booth the following morning, although the former was off duty and had turned off his work phone. When Mr Woodroofe turned on his personal telephone, there were ‘a number of missed calls’ and a voice message from Mr Booth purportedly saying that, if he called, Mr Woodroofe needed to answer and requested a return call. Mr Woodroofe called Mr Booth and ‘it was not a normal conversation’, he ‘didn’t know what was happening’ and was ‘abused’ for not previously answering. Mr Booth apparently said that he had ‘concerns’ but, in response to Mr Woodroofe’s request, would not detail those concerns and told Mr Woodroofe to report to him on the Monday at ACT Policing, rather than attending ACT Health. Mr Woodroofe said that Mr Booth told him he was not allowed to know why he was to report to Mr Booth or what the matter was about.

25. Mr Woodroofe was referred to text messages he sent to Mr Willis on 18 September 2021, in which Mr Woodroofe stated that he had been ‘told to report to winchester Monday [sic]’ and ‘something strange afoot very weird. Think im [sic] just gunna tap out mate’.[19] Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal the phrase ‘tap out meant that he did not have any desire to work in an environment where he was ‘unfairly chastised and abused’ and he would ‘just leave the COVID team’; it was ‘not worth it’ to him. He denied being suicidal or intending to convey in that message that he was so. He noted that Mr Willis rang Mr Woodroofe to confirm.

    [19] Exhibit 6.

26. On Monday, 20 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe did not attend Winchester police station because his then wife had earlier arrested a COVID-19 positive person and they were then both required to quarantine for two weeks and Mr Woodroofe could not work from home.

27. On 22 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe received a phone call from Mr Willis. He told the Tribunal that Mr Willis was ‘very friendly as he always is’, asked how he and his wife were managing with COVID-19, but also told him the ACT Health position was no longer available because the AFP were ‘scaling back’ at that location, so he could either return to the COVID compliance team at Winchester station or one of the other teams. Mr Woodroofe said he would return to Gungahlin station undertaking general police work.  

28. On 5 October 2021, the date Mr Woodroofe was due to return to work following his COVID-19 enforced quarantine, he showered and put on his uniform, sat on the bed to do up his boots and started ‘crying and shaking’. He told the Tribunal that it was not a good state to be in to attend police work, he rang the officer in charge at the station and said he would not attend work. Mr Woodroofe attended a local medical clinic and received a certificate for a few days off work.

29. Counsel asked Mr Woodroofe what was the most significant event that caused his injury. He told the Tribunal that it was the ‘abusive’ phone call from Ms Binstead after the meeting on 11 September 2021. He had ‘never felt like that before’; it ‘really rattled me’. Mr Woodroofe said he was a harsh critic of himself, but he could not understand Ms Binstead’s ‘motivation’, ‘tone’ and the ‘personal nature of the attacks’. Mr Woodroofe said following that incident, it was being vulnerable and asking Mr Booth for help, only for him to become ‘aggressive’ towards him in the following days, which ‘really had an effect’ on him because he was already isolated at ACT Health, although they were ‘very professional’. Mr Woodroofe said that he was not proud that it affected him, but it did ‘a lot’. He said the way Ms Binstead spoke to him during the telephone call and the fact that her ‘logic was so nonsensical’, was the most significant incident.

30. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he was ‘very shocked’ at the discussion with Mr Willis, because during a previous phone call Mr Willis had reassured Mr Woodroofe that he was ‘valuable’ and ‘how much he needed me’. Therefore, for Mr Woodroofe to be told that the role with ACT Health was ‘over’ and he was going back to ACT Policing was ‘a bit of a shock’, especially while he was quarantining.  

31. Under cross-examination, Mr Woodroofe was referred to his evidence that he was shocked at the manner of his removal from the role at ACT Health and his view that the telephone conversation with Ms Binstead was ‘abusive’ and had really rattled him. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that the only contact of any significance with Ms Binstead, referred to in his three written statements in the proceedings, was the telephone call after the meeting at ACT Health on 11 September 2021. He told the Tribunal that was ‘one of them’ and subsequently said it was ‘significant’. Counsel for Comcare took Mr Woodroofe to the report of Dr Sarah Farrand, Psychiatrist, dated 12 June 2024, which relevantly set out Mr Woodroofe’s history of what occurred in the workplace insofar as it impacted on his mental health.[20] Mr Woodroofe was referred to other claimed incidents involving Ms Binstead that were contained in the report of Dr Farrand.[21] He agreed to mentioning those matters to Dr Farrand and maintained that he also mentioned those incidents in his written statements. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that he had not detailed a particular further claimed incident in his statements.

    [20] Exhibit 4, pages 65-66.

    [21] Ibid., pages 65-66.

32. Mr Woodroofe considered that he was asked to be a liaison officer at ACT Health in or around August 2021.[22] Mr Woodroofe could not recall whether he told Dr Farrand that there would ‘be periods where Randal [sic] would pick up the phone and Supt Binstead would be screaming at him’.[23] He subsequently agreed giving that history to Dr Farrand. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that behaviour occurred on ‘multiple occasions’. Counsel referred to Dr Farrand’s report detailing Mr Woodroofe describing receiving ‘abusive messages in group chats, witnessed by others, but this has all been erased and now doesn’t exist’.[24] He told the Tribunal that he received these messages from Ms Binstead and Mr Booth. As a result, Counsel asked whether he had raised these matters in any of his written statements. Mr Woodroofe said he would have to read through all of his statements.

    [22] Ibid., page 66.

    [23] Ibid.

    [24] Ibid., page 66.

1. Mr Woodroofe was then taken to his first written statement from December 2021, which referred to incident one being the telephone call with Ms Binstead on 11 September 2021.[25] He told the Tribunal that the matters he had set out were those about which he had ‘contemporaneous notes’ and did not record ‘every time someone was rude to me’. Counsel put to him that there was no mention in his first written statement of the other alleged incidents he had mentioned to Dr Farrand. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that ‘it would appear not’.

   [25] Exhibit 1, page 17.

2. Counsel asked Mr Woodroofe what Ms Binstead was abusing him about in the group messages. He said on one occasion it was because he clarified something with her boss, who was pleased about it, but Ms Binstead swore at him and told him not to ‘talk to my boss’, but to follow ‘chain of command’, which Mr Woodroofe said was ‘ironic’ because his chain of command ‘would not include speaking with her’. He also told the Tribunal that Ms Binstead told him not to ‘question her’ and swore at him when he suggested there were ‘too many group chats’ which may lead to misinformation. Mr Woodroofe was asked about the claimed termination of an earlier separate meeting he attended with Ms Binstead, Mr Booth and ACT Health, which he raised with Dr Farrand, ‘due to the poor behaviour of both Sgt Booth and Supt Binstead’, including claimed ‘rude and bullying behaviour’.[26] Mr Woodroofe could not recall the date of that alleged incident.

   [26] Exhibit 4, page 66.

3. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that he was making allegations of bullying, harassment and bad behaviour against Ms Binstead and Mr Booth in the proceedings. He told the Tribunal that he was ‘being honest’ and was under oath ‘recalling honestly what took place in my workplace’. He said he did not have a ‘specific reason’ why he had not mentioned the other claimed incident in his written statements, but that he had had an ‘honest conversation’ with Dr Farrand and recalled everything he could. Mr Woodroofe was asked whether he accepted that the important event was not mentioned in any of his written statements. He agreed and told the Tribunal he could not explain why the alleged incident was not referenced in his three statements.

4. Counsel referred Mr Woodroofe to Mr Willis’ written statement from 2022 that Ms Binstead, Mr Booth and Mr Willis had ‘constant’ discussions regarding the ‘professional performance and welfare of all staff’ and, in relation to Mr Woodroofe, they were ‘aware he was performing extremely long shifts compounded by at least a one-hour drive to and from his home in Goulburn NSW, to the HECC office in Phillip, ACT’.[27] While Mr Woodroofe agreed that he was working long shifts and had a one hour drive home to his residence, he was unaware it was an issue the leadership group were discussing.

   [27] Exhibit 1, page 73.

5. Mr Woodroofe was referred to the text message exchange he had with Mr Willis on 8 September 2021, in which Mr Willis stated that a ‘group discussion about shifts and roles’ was required.[28] Counsel then referred to the meeting on 11 September 2021 regarding the proposed quarantine facility and associated issues including its security and fencing. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he did not recall that an ongoing issue was which agency was responsible for security. However, he did agree that there were ongoing discussions between the AFP and ACT Health about all facilities. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that the AFP’s attitude was that it was not part of the AFP’s role to provide basic security. He told the Tribunal that, under Ms Binstead, the view ‘changed fairly regularly’, but that was ‘one’ position. Mr Woodroofe said that he was ‘often involved’ in discussions regarding the AFP’s position, but agreed that they were decisions for people higher up the management chain than him.

   [28] Exhibit 6. See also Exhibit 1, page 73.

6. Counsel further referred to Mr Willis’ written statement that the relationship between ACT Policing and ACT Health was ‘generally cordial and professional, but the two very different roles of law enforcement and community health care caused conflict at time’ and ACT Health ‘including their HECC staff were under their own tremendous pressures, due to which it was apparent to me some of their leaders also struggled’.[29] In response, Mr Woodroofe said that there was ‘uncertainty’ amongst ‘a lot of leaderships’ given the unprecedented nature of COVID-19. He was also referred to Mr Willis’ statement that, ‘by early September, it appeared the sustained pressure of answering to two masters, i.e. Taskforce Command and ACTHD HECC managers was taking a toll’ on Mr Woodroofe.[30] He denied answering to two masters, and said he reported to ACT Policing, not ACT Health, although Mr Woodroofe agreed that at times there was different viewpoints between the two agencies.  

   [29] Exhibit 1, page 72.

   [30] Ibid.

7. Mr Woodroofe was again referred to the meeting of 11 September 2021, which Ms Binstead attended virtually, and to their subsequent telephone conversation of the same date. Mr Woodroofe disagreed with the proposition that Ms Binstead did not swear at him during that conversation. It was further put to Mr Woodroofe that Ms Binstead was bringing him into the loop by trying to point out to him that there were bigger issues involved in relation to the proposed facility such as payment for security and that it was not to be provided by the AFP. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal he was ‘already aware’ of those issues and said ‘it wasn’t about that at all, she accused me of agreeing to pay for things, which I said I did not’. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that Ms Binstead never alleged that he had committed the AFP to expenditure. He maintained that he was being honest.

8. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he was unsure what was meant by Counsel’s proposition that there were other issues at play before he left work on 11 September 2021. He was asked whether, during their conversation, he took issue with what Ms Binstead was saying to him. Mr Woodroofe said that it was ‘not possible to take issue when someone is talking at you’, but recalled saying ‘that’s not correct’, the minutes of the meeting would bear out his version of events and he ‘did not agree to anything’.

9. Counsel referred to the written statement of Mr Booth that he had a telephone conversation with Mr Woodroofe after the meeting on 11 September 2021 where Mr Woodroofe ‘stated he was upset for being corrected for speaking over D/Supt Binstead during the earlier meeting’.[31] Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal this was ‘correct’. He was then referred to email correspondence Mr Woodroofe forwarded to Mr Booth on the afternoon of 11 September 2021 regarding ACT Health’s request for ACT Policing to conduct a COVID-19 compliance check and the AFP’s associated disgruntlement about such requests.[32] Mr Woodroofe conceded that an internal AFP email sent by a colleague was a ‘big rant’ about ACT Health’s requests for police to perform compliance checks. He agreed that the email was sent on to him to action as the liaison between ACT Health and the AFP. Mr Woodroofe agreed that he replied to the email at 4.40pm on 11 September 2021. Mr Woodroofe did not accept that he was venting his frustrations at having to deal with matters raised in the earlier internal AFP email and said he was ‘replying to the email’. He also denied that it was a frustrating part of his role as a liaison officer in having to explain to ACT Health the policing constraints in relation to what ACT Health wanted. Counsel referred to Mr Woodroofe’s email in the afternoon of 11 September 2021, which requested advice regarding the compliance check disagreement between ACT Health and the AFP, and also stated that he was not ‘having my best day so would appreciate your advice’.[33] Mr Woodroofe denied that his email was venting his frustration at negotiating a pathway between the two agencies. It was suggested that that frustration was why he took a ‘mental health day’ the following day, on 12 September 2021. Mr Woodroofe replied, ‘righto’, and told the Tribunal he did not recall the email.  

   [31] Exhibit 1, page 48.

   [32] Ibid., pages 55-60.

   [33] Ibid., page 55.

10. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that he shared the email with Mr Booth later on 11 September 2021.[34] Mr Woodroofe said that it was sent to Mr Booth because he was not in the original email correspondence and it was ‘important’ that he had awareness. Counsel referred to Mr Booth’s written statement regarding the email exchange of 11 September 2021 that Mr Woodroofe ‘completely overreacted to the email when a phone call to the relevant Sgt could have resolved the issue’.[35] Mr Woodroofe said that was Mr Booth’s ‘opinion’.

    [34] Ibid., page 55.

    [35] Ibid., page 48.

11. Mr Woodroofe was referred to a text message exchange he had on the evening of 11 September 2021, in which Mr Booth claimed that Mr Woodroofe ‘appreciated the chat earlier’, ‘wanted things kept’ between themselves and ‘needed space to consider things and would like to sit down’ with Mr Willis and Mr Booth ‘on Monday, which never eventuated, as he “trusted us”’.[36] Mr Woodroofe could not recall the text message exchange and did not know whether he had been drinking alcohol at the time. He also could not recall Mr Booth’s message that he was ‘more appreciated than he believed he was’ and was ‘doing a good job’.[37] When other elements of Mr Booth’s text messages of 11 September 2021 were put to Mr Woodroofe he again told the Tribunal he did not remember the text message exchange, but did not dispute that it occurred. Counsel put to Mr Woodroofe that Mr Booth was demonstrating quite a caring attitude in his text messages. Mr Woodroofe said that he was ‘extremely caring, yes’. As a result, Mr Woodroofe was asked whether he maintained his allegations that Mr Booth was a bully and harasser. He told the Tribunal he was ‘not alleging anything, I’m telling the truth’.

    [36] Ibid., page 49.

    [37] Ibid. See also Exhibit 8.

12. Counsel referred to Mr Woodroofe’s timesheets in evidence in the proceeding.[38] He confirmed that he had reviewed that document and agreed that it included his ordinary work hours and overtime. The timesheets recorded that Mr Woodroofe worked from 8am to 7pm on 11 September 2021, from 9am to 7pm on 12 September 2021, and from 8am to 6pm on 13 September 2021, and was off duty on 14 and 15 September 2021. He returned to work from 8am to 6pm on 16 September 2021 and worked from 8am to 8pm on 17 September 2021.[39] Mr Woodroofe said that Mr Booth had ‘possibly’ been attempting to call him on 17 September 2021, but he could not remember.  

    [38] Exhibit 7.

    [39] Ibid.

13. Mr Woodroofe was taken to email correspondence commencing on 14 September 2021, involving Ms Binstead, Mr Booth and Mr Willis, regarding changes to the roster for liaison officers at the HECC, including Ms Binstead seeking adjustments so that Mr Woodroofe ‘can travel home safely’.[40] Mr Woodroofe agreed that on occasions he drove home late from work to his residence at Goulburn. He further said that ACT Health staff had ‘possibly’ called him to ensure that he reached home after work. Mr Woodroofe was unaware that ACT Health communicated that to the AFP. He was also unaware that the AFP was concerned about his work hours as a liaison officer. Relatedly, Mr Woodroofe was referred to an email from Mr Willis, in the aforementioned correspondence on 14 September 2021, requesting that Mr Woodroofe’s roster ‘match’ that of his then wife.[41] As a result, it was put to Mr Woodroofe that management was expressing a concern for his working hours. He told the Tribunal he did not ‘see anything about working hours’, but maybe ‘when the hours fell’. In relation to the proposed extra step of aligning his work hours with his then spouse, Mr Woodroofe said ‘that would have been great, after six months of not having that’.

    [40] Exhibit 1, page 68.

    [41] Ibid., page 67

14. Counsel also referred to an email in the afternoon of 14 September 2021 from the AFP’s human resources area formalising the roster and to a reply email from Ms Binstead on the same date that, on days where three of the liaison officers were on duty, one of them could work at ‘Winchester’, rather than ACT Health.[42] The new roster was issued by email on 15 September 2021.[43] Mr Woodroofe was referred to a subsequent email on 15 September 2021 from Ms Binstead, which addressed the ‘HECC team’, which included him, stating that the new roster with effect from 17 September 2021 ‘will hopefully give you a more manageable work schedule and reduce those crazy stressful hours. There is ample coverage for the meetings you have advised are important, so it’s an achievable roster which is most importantly EA [Enterprise Agreement] compliant’.[44] It was put to Mr Woodroofe that this step was taken because there was concern that he was working too long, compounded by having a long drive home on completion of a shift. He agreed to having a long drive home. The final email in that correspondence was Mr Woodroofe’s email reply on 16 September 2021 confirming the new roster arrangements were ‘[a]ll noted with thanks’ and there were ‘[n]o issues here’.[45] Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he did not ‘identify any issues’ with the new roster and agreed that the AFP management were concerned about his long work hours, and the new roster was designed to provide him with a more manageable work schedule, reduce his hours and be ‘EA compliant’.

    [42] Ibid., page 65.

    [43] Ibid., pages 62-63.

    [44] Ibid., pages 61-62.

    [45] Ibid., page 61.

15. Counsel then referred to Mr Booth’s written statement that:[46]

    On the days prior to him agreeing to the proposed roster I had tried to contact A/Sgt Woodroofe by Signal a number of times, both to ask how he was and to see if he wanted to have a phone call, also asking him to call me when I didn’t hear back. While he read the messages he did not respond, and I informed D/Supt Binstead of this. These contact attempts were to check on his welfare since each of us held concerns about his reaction to relatively minor issues.

    [46] Ibid., page 50.

16. Mr Woodroofe agreed that the ‘minor issues’ referred to in Mr Booth’s statement related to the telephone conversation with Ms Binstead and his reaction to the internal AFP email correspondence on 11 September 2021.

17. Counsel further referred to Mr Booth’s written statement that:[47]

    On 17 September 2021 I had minor contact with A/Sgt Woodroofe during the day. On the new roster that he had agreed to he was on a 12p-8p shift that day and when I had difficulty contacting him when he should have been finished work I spoke with D/Supt Binstead to outline my concerns. I managed to contact him around 10.45pm…I recall asking him how long he had been home to which he said “about an hour” and he was laughing strangely. I told him I was calling to check in as I had trouble contacting him. A/Sgt Woodroofe continued laughing and I asked him if he was drunk and he slurred “well aren’t you?” before laughing again. I refute that I said anything along the lines of “stand down” as this simply isn’t even a phrase I normally use. I did tell him during that call that if I contact him I expect him to respond…Considering him intoxicated I indicated that I would speak with him tomorrow and rang off.

    [47] Ibid.

18. Mr Woodroofe denied laughing strangely during the telephone call with Mr Booth or that Mr Booth told Mr Woodroofe that he was calling to check in on him because he had difficulty contacting Mr Woodroofe. He also denied continuing to laugh during the conversation with Mr Booth. Mr Woodroofe did agree that Mr Booth asked whether he was drunk. Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he ‘wasn’t laughing’ because Mr Booth was ‘being aggressive’ and ‘there was nothing to laugh about’. Counsel asked Mr Woodroofe what he claimed Mr Booth was being aggressive about and he said ‘you’d need to ask him why, but he was being aggressive’. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that Mr Booth was reaching out to him about his welfare, to which Mr Woodroofe replied, ‘Was he? He wasn’t’. Mr Woodroofe denied being drunk at that time, but accepted that he had ‘possibly’ consumed alcohol, and later said it was ‘nonsense’ that he was intoxicated. Mr Woodroofe disagreed with the proposition that Mr Booth had not told him to ‘stand down’ during the call. Mr Woodroofe did agree that Mr Booth told him he expected a response when contacted.

19. Counsel referred to the report of Dr Mark Ryan, Psychiatrist, dated 13 May 2022, which noted that Mr Woodroofe had ‘agreed to curtail his alcohol use, develop structure and engage in meaningful activity in the course of each day and to address his sleep-wake behaviours to establish his circadian rhythm sleep’.[48] He was further referred to a clinical note from 19 July 2022, in which Dr Tiffanie Goh recorded that his presenting issue was alcohol withdrawal and consumption of approximately 26 standard drinks each day for around 18 months.[49] Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal he ‘hadn’t been drinking that much for that long’ and ‘she must have misunderstood something’. He disagreed with ‘the timeline’, it would not have been 18 months up to July 2022; he ‘wouldn’t have had time to drink that much’ due to work. He contended that the entry was incorrect. Mr Woodroofe said that he would have had ‘a drink’ with dinner after work before Mr Booth called him at 10.45pm on 17 September 2021.

    [48] Exhibit 2, page 76.

    [49] Exhibit 4, page 146.

20. Counsel referred to Mr Booth’s written statement regarding Mr Woodroofe failing to respond to his earlier communications and rejected the proposition that he was derelict in failing to respond to other officers’ text messages or calls.[50] Mr Woodroofe was then referred to Mr Booth’s statement that he unsuccessfully called Mr Woodroofe on 18 September 2021:[51]

    to follow from my call the previous evening and have him start on Monday in Winchester (ACTP Headquarters) as the leadership group felt collectively it was best for him to spend some time in a different space. As usual I could not get through to A/Sgt Woodroofe and I left a firm message that he should not ignore my call and that I expected a call in return. I believe having regard to his behaviour in ignoring calls from myself that this was a fair and lawful direction…I had already made significant reasonable attempts to keep A/Sgt Woodroofe engaged and support his welfare.

    [50] Exhibit 1, page 51.

    [51] Exhibit 1, page 51.

21. Mr Woodroofe recalled being informed to report to Winchester and told the Tribunal he did not believe he was working on 18 September 2021, was not being paid to be ‘on call’ and therefore had no reason to have his telephone switched on.

22. Counsel referred to Mr Willis’ written statement regarding a text message exchange he had with Mr Woodroofe on 18 September 2021, in which Mr Woodroofe referred to having been ‘told to report to winchester monday because booth is concerned about me [sic]’ and Mr Willis responded to Mr Woodroofe via text that:[52]

    We do worry about you mate, you’ve been putting in huge work loads with 2+ hours driving each day. probably a good chance to clear the air. The new roster includes shifts at WPC [Winchester Police Centre] anyway.  

    [52] Exhibit 6.

23. Mr Woodroofe agreed that Mr Willis was informing him what was happening. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that it was hardly bullying or harassment. He told the Tribunal he did not allege that Mr Willis had bullied or was unfair to him. As a result, it was put to Mr Woodroofe that he alleged one of his stressors for suffering psychiatric symptoms was caused by the direction to report to Gungahlin Police Station. He denied that proposition. When it was further put to Mr Woodroofe that the AFP management’s proposed duties for him was one of the incidents he relied upon for his claim, management’s attitude was summed up in Mr Willis’ above text message to him, and that it was a fairly benevolent one, Mr Woodroofe said, ‘they would say that, wouldn’t they’ and asked rhetorically why the roster was ‘non-compliant in the first place’ and why was he working ‘so many hours’.

1. It was therefore put to Mr Woodroofe that AFP management were seeking to correct the previous arrangements which were not working and had been to his detriment. He again said the roster was not compliant with the ‘EA’. Mr Woodroofe agreed that the AFP were seeking to correct that issue. He denied not wanting to be transferred from the liaison role at ACT Health. Counsel put to Mr Woodroofe that, underpinning his case, was the AFP decision to return him to Gungahlin Police Station from ACT Health. He told the Tribunal it was ‘the way it was done’, ‘the fact that I was lied to’ and ‘the shock’ he received by the new arrangement ‘coming out of the blue’.

2. It was put to Mr Woodroofe that the AFP management were trying to assist him, including through the new roster, and that it was summed up in Mr Willis’ text message to him on 18 September 2021.[53] He agreed that ‘they were trying to start a new roster, of which we’d had probably seven or eight’, so as to become ‘EA compliant’. It was again put to Mr Woodroofe that it was to address his high workloads and lengthy commute. In response, Mr Woodroofe said ‘I didn’t create the workload, that was management’. 

   [53] Ibid.

3. Counsel then referred to Mr Woodroofe’s reply message to Mr Willis on 18 September 2021, stating ‘something strange afoot very weird. Think im just gunna tap out mate [sic]’.[54] He denied having been drinking at the time. Mr Woodroofe agreed that Mr Willis called him regarding his welfare following receipt of that message on 18 September 2021, in circumstances where Mr Willis stated that, ‘in policing vernacular, to “tap out” also means committing suicide’.[55] Mr Woodroofe agreed to being agitated as a result of his treatment by Ms Binstead and Mr Booth and the requirement for him to attend Winchester without explanation. Mr Woodroofe disagreed that he understood Mr Booth wanted to speak to him the following day at the police station about concluding his liaison officer duties for his own welfare; he knew ‘something was up’ and did not want to continue if there was a ‘toxic environment’.[56] Mr Woodroofe recalled that Mr Willis said he could not guarantee Mr Woodroofe’s continued role as an Acting Sergeant at ACT Health.[57] Mr Woodroofe also agreed with the proposition that he would incur a financial loss or loss of a benefit if he returned to Gungahlin Police Station.

   [54] Exhibit 6.

   [55] Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 1, page 74.

   [56] Exhibit 1, page 74.

   [57] Ibid.

4. On 19 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe had to isolate due to his then wife’s close contact with a COVID-19 positive person. Mr Willis’ evidence was that he arranged for Mr Woodroofe to receive welfare officer support and ‘texted him ensuring ACTP Welfare officers had been in contact with him and his partner’ and ‘remined him to claim all hours entitled under the AFP Enterprise Agreement in acknowledgement of the work he had done’.[58] Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal that he agreed that Mr Willis had made contact, but did not recall anything being said about his hours.[59] Mr Woodroofe also agreed that he called Mr Willis twice on 19 September 2021 regarding their quarantine arrangements.[60] Mr Willis’ written statement recorded that Mr Woodroofe did not complain in their telephone calls about any bullying or similar treatment.[61] Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal it was ‘already discussed’ in the previous ‘tap out phone call’.

   [58] Ibid.

   [59] Ibid.

   [60] Ibid.

   [61] Ibid.

5. In re-examination, Mr Woodroofe was referred to Dr Farrand’s report and his own statement of 23 February 2023 that Ms Binstead ‘started yelling’ at him in front of ‘about seven people’ ‘on her first day at CCT [Covid Compliance Team]’.[62] He said this alleged incident was the same one that he had spoken about with Dr Farrand and occurred before his telephone call with Ms Binstead on 11 September 2021.  

   [62] Exhibit 4, page 83.

6. Counsel for Mr Woodroofe referred him to the report of Dr Joey Le, Psychiatrist, dated 8 March 2023 and the history he gave at that time of various alleged adverse conduct towards him by Ms Binstead.[63] Mr Woodroofe told the Tribunal the purpose of that history was him ‘retracing the timeline’ as to when he ‘started to feel uncomfortable’ and was trying to ‘connect the dots backwards’.

   [63] Exhibit 4, page 8.

7. Mr Woodroofe was asked when he felt mistreated by Mr Booth. He told the Tribunal it was when Mr Woodroofe ‘confided in him’ that he was struggling, and from then on Mr Booth was ‘not pleasant towards me’. Mr Woodroofe recalled that Mr Booth rang shortly after the telephone conversation with Ms Binstead on 11 September 2021 and ‘that’s when we spoke about it’.

8. Counsel asked Mr Woodroofe about the extent to which his drinking habits changed because of the relevant events. He told the Tribunal that he increased consumption, because he would go home with his ‘mind racing’, ‘trying to work things out’ and ‘it was good just to numb that’. This purportedly started after the first incident with Ms Binstead on 11 September 2021.  

   Ms Louise Smith

9. The Tribunal has considered the written statement of Ms Smith dated 22 November 2023, which relevantly stated that:[64]

   The meeting on 11 September 2021 was held via video conference with several people physically present at Bowes Street. In the meeting room at Bowes was Chiara Spencer, Meg Brighton, Constable Woodroofe and me. On the video conference were people from a number of other ACT Directorates including Community Services Directorate, Chief Ministers [sic] and ACTP, Inspector Naomi Binstead. The meeting was held to discuss the O’Connor sites and its suitability for a quarantine facility. During the meeting the Deputy Director General (DDG) of ACT Health, Meg Brighton, asked for feedback from ACTP and directed her question to Constable Woodroofe, noting that Superintendent Binstead had not been present at the site. Officer Woodroofe said he would have to defer to mam however as the Superintendent had not been at the meeting DDG asked that Officer Woodroofe give an overview of what the site was like. Officer Woodroofe did this indicating that the site was large with a long perimeter fence that in parts was not overly secure. Superintendent Binstead had no further comments to make.

   Later that day my staff member Chiara Spencer told me that Constable Woodroofe had received a phone call from Superintendent Binstead which visibly upset him in relation to the meeting earlier in the day. I approached Constable Woodroofe and asked what had happened and if he was okay. Constable Woodroofe asked me whether during the meeting he had committed ACTP resources or indicated a stance by ACTP about the site at O’Connor to which I indicated no in fact he had been very broad in his assessment of the site and only indicated that it was a large side there was some fencing gaps and consideration should be given to fixing those and potentially CCTV. He then indicated to me that post the meeting Superintendent Binstead had called and verbally abused him on the phone telling him he'd stepped out of line he committed ACTP resourcing and that he should not have spoken at all. Constable Woodroofe was visible shaken by this and appear [sic] highly distressed.

   [64] Exhibit 4, pages 91-93.

10. Mr Woodroofe called Ms Smith to give evidence at the Tribunal hearing and she confirmed adherence to her written statement. At the relevant time, Ms Smith was a senior director with ACT Health.

11. Ms Smith was referred to the report of Dr Farrand, Psychiatrist, regarding Ms Smith’s termination of a meeting attended by Mr Woodroofe, Ms Binstead, Mr Booth and herself.[65] Ms Smith said that the meeting about quarantining happened in late August 2021 or the beginning of September 2021, with Ms Binstead, Mr Booth and Mr Willis attending via video and Mr Woodroofe being in-person with Ms Smith. She said at that meeting Ms Binstead ‘spoke over me for most of it’ and ‘was quite adversarial’ in her language and approach. Ms Smith considered that Ms Binstead was having ‘a go’ at her and ACT Health in relation to how poorly they were performing their jobs. Ms Smith said she raised the issue of ACT Health being concerned that people had left quarantine without being noticed by ACT Policing and ‘basically I was shut down’ by Ms Binstead. Mr Booth apparently then mentioned an incident which had led to ACT Policing being asked to help locate a person and Mr Booth was said to have been ‘quite rude’ in his language at the meeting. Ms Smith said Mr Booth ‘slammed the desk’ and ‘walked out’ of view of the video screen. Ms Smith told the Tribunal that she then stopped the meeting due to the attitude of Mr Booth and Ms Binstead. She said the AFP and ACT Health relationship was ‘always a bit challenging’.

    [65] Exhibit 4, pages 64-76.

12. Under cross-examination, Ms Smith agreed that neither Mr Booth nor Ms Binstead exhibited any untoward behaviour to Mr Woodroofe at the meeting she aborted, although he was in the room at the time of that earlier meeting. Ms Smith agreed that she could not speak about any direct interactions or a particular incident she had witnessed between Mr Woodroofe and Ms Binstead, but could discuss ‘his behaviour’ after the alleged incident. Ms Smith said that Ms Binstead’s interactions in meetings with her were ‘professional’. She did not witness any personal interactions between Mr Booth and Mr Woodroofe. Nor did she witness any personal interactions between Mr Willis and Mr Woodroofe. In this regard, Ms Smith agreed that she could not give any direct evidence regarding what occurred between the three relevant AFP officers and Mr Woodroofe.

13. Counsel for Comcare referred to the meeting on 11 September 2021. Ms Smith disagreed that the meeting was called to discuss who would provide security at quarantine facilities. She said there was no expectation that the AFP would provide security. Indeed, they were discussing removing ACT Policing from the quarantine facilities. To this end, Ms Smith told the Tribunal that ACT Policing had indicated that their resources could be better used and there was no objection from ACT Health.

14. Counsel referred Ms Smith to her written statement that in her interactions with Mr Woodroofe he ‘indicted he felt’ that Ms Binstead and Mr Booth were ‘trying to get rid of him’.[66] Ms Smith confirmed to the Tribunal that Mr Woodroofe had not indicated how many times he had spoken to Ms Binstead, Mr Booth or Mr Willis.  Ms Smith could not recall whether Mr Woodroofe told her that Mr Willis texted him on 18 September 2021 regarding his concern for Mr Woodroofe, including his workloads and commute.[67]

    [66] Exhibit 4, page 92.

    [67] Exhibit 6.

15. Ms Smith was aware that ACT Health staff were calling Mr Woodroofe to ensure he had arrived home safely after work, and said that they ‘would have done that’, and did with many staff, given the long hours.  

16. Ms Smith told the Tribunal that Mr Woodroofe did not inform her how many conversations he had with Mr Booth, but he indicated to her that he ‘felt’ that ‘they were trying to get rid of him’ and felt ‘belittled and harassed’. Mr Woodroofe did not mention that they were concerned about his welfare, but ‘he indicated that nobody’ was checking on his welfare. Ms Smith could not recall whether Mr Woodroofe told her that Mr Willis and Mr Booth called to check in on him on a number of occasions but that he did not respond to those communications.  

    Ms Chiara Spencer

17. The Tribunal has considered the written statement of Ms Spencer dated 22 November 2023, which relevantly stated in relation to the meeting on 11 September 2021 that:[68] 

    Con. Woodroofe stated he would have to defer to Mam Binstead but based on his site visit he believed the site was an appropriate site and provided good security, however some of the fencing was not complete. It is my understanding that the question asked by Meg Brighton was related to the site inspection that Con. Woodroofe attended the previous day so he was able to give an account of the site. I believe Supt. Binstead did not attend the site visit. I distinctly remember Con. Woodroofe stating “I will have to defer to Mam” as it reminded me of my time working with the NSW Police and officers deferring to their superiors to maintain the Chain of Command.

    After the meeting I returned to my desk on Level 3, 4 Bowes Street, Woden. Con. Woodroofe’s desk was located in the same work area as mine. He received a phone call and when he got off the phone he appeared physically upset. He let me know the phone call was from Supt. Binstead and he asked me if I thought he had spoken out of line during the meeting by stating that the AFP would provide CCTV at the site. He further stated that Supt. Binstead had just said to him on the phone that he was out of line and not able to make decisions for the AFP. I said ‘Wow, I think she was in a different meeting to us!’ as Con. Woodroofe did defer to her about the AFP position and that all he did was provide comments about the site specifics he had observed during his visit the day before.

    I remember Con. Woodroofe was shaking and very upset after receiving the phone call.

    [68] Exhibit 4, page 94.

18. Mr Woodroofe called Ms Spencer to give evidence at the Tribunal hearing and she confirmed adherence to her written statement. At the time of the meeting in September 2021, Ms Spencer worked with ACT Health.

19. Under cross-examination, Ms Spencer told the Tribunal the meeting in September 2021 commenced at 12pm and went for under one hour. She recalled Ms Binstead attending the meeting by telephone, but not visually. Ms Spencer was referred to her written statement that she saw Mr Woodroofe ‘physically upset’ following a phone call with Ms Binstead after the meeting.[69] Ms Spencer told the Tribunal that she saw him being ‘quite shaky’ and enquired whether everything was alright. Mr Woodroofe told Ms Spencer that the call was from Ms Binstead and he asked Ms Spencer whether she thought he had spoken ‘out of line’ at the meeting.[70] Ms Spencer recalled that Mr Woodroofe informed her that Ms Binstead stated in their telephone call that, at the meeting, he had committed the AFP to providing CCTV for quarantine facilities. Ms Spencer recalled that Mr Woodroofe at the meeting had responded about ‘site specifics’, such as it been appropriate from a security perspective. Ms Spencer believed that Mr Woodroofe went home after that incident, but not straight away although it was earlier than her departure.

    [69] Exhibit 4, page 94.

    [70] Ibid.

    Ms Johanna Gossler

20. The Tribunal has considered the written statement of Ms Gossler dated 25 July 2024, who was Mr Woodroofe’s spouse at the relevant time and a member of ACT Policing.[71] Mr Woodroofe called Ms Gossler to give evidence at the Tribunal hearing and she confirmed adherence to her written statement.

    [71] Exhibit 5.

21. Under cross-examination, Ms Gossler confirmed that she and Mr Woodroofe previously lived in Goulburn and there was a one hour commute for him to work. Ms Gossler said she was unaware of any efforts to align her and Mr Woodroofe’s shifts to minimise inconvenience. She confirmed that Mr Woodroofe became a liaison officer in approximately mid-2021, which entailed working longer hours and him returning home ‘quite late’. Ms Gossler did not recall Mr Woodroofe receiving phone calls from ACT Health staff ensuring he arrived home safely.

22. Counsel for Comcare referred Ms Gossler to her statement that, in September 2021, Mr Woodroofe ‘told me about a number of incidents during his employment which significantly affected his mental health’.[72] Ms Gossler told the Tribunal these incidents included Mr Woodroofe’s telephone calls with Ms Binstead on 11 September 2021 and Mr Booth on 17 September 2021. She was at home with Mr Woodroofe when he received that phone call from Mr Booth, but was unsure of its duration and was in another room. Ms Gossler was also unsure whether Mr Booth had previously been seeking to contact Mr Woodroofe. She could not hear what either Mr Booth or Mr Woodroofe were saying during their conversation. Ms Gossler said it was ‘possible’ that her then husband had been drinking when he received the call from Mr Booth; Mr Woodroofe had returned home ‘late’. Ms Gossler subsequently agreed that they had both been drinking, but they were not ‘excessive drinkers’.

    [72] Exhibit 5.

23. Ms Gossler further stated that Mr Woodroofe’s alcohol intake prior to the phone call with Mr Booth was ‘normal’ and she had no concerns about it. She said Mr Woodroofe would have ‘a couple of drinks’, being two to three drinks, but not every evening or before returning home.

24. Ms Gossler was referred to a text message on 8 September 2021 from Mr Willis to Mr Woodroofe regarding the need for a ‘group discussion about shifts and roles’.[73] She said Mr Woodroofe had not mentioned that text message and did not recall any discussion with him about the AFP seeking to ensure he had better hours, but said that it was something they would have discussed if it was occurring.

    [73] Exhibit 6.

25. Counsel took Ms Gossler to Mr Woodroofe’s text message to Mr Willis from 18 September 2021 regarding being told the report to Winchester on Monday, 20 September 2021 ‘because booth [sic] is concerned about me’.[74] She recalled Mr Woodroofe telling her about being told to report to Winchester Police Centre. She did not recall whether Mr Woodroofe said it was because Mr Booth was concerned about him. Ms Gossler also could not recall ‘what was said’ by Mr Woodroofe in relation to Mr Willis’ text message to him of 18 September 2021 that ‘[w]e do worry about you mate’ or any conversation about rostering.[75]  

    [74] Ibid.

    [75] Ibid.

26. Finally, Counsel asked what Ms Gossler said to the proposition that Mr Woodroofe was drinking alcohol to excess prior to September 2021. She did not agree and said she was ‘never concerned about his drinking’ until ‘later’ and ‘he only drank at home’.  

    Mr Brett Booth

27. The Tribunal has considered the written statement of Mr Booth dated 20 January 2022.[76]  Comcare called Mr Booth to give evidence at the Tribunal hearing and he confirmed adherence to his statement. He has been employed with the AFP for 34 years and is currently an Inspector with ACT Policing.[77]

    [76] Exhibit 1, pages 46-68.

    [77] Ibid.

28. Mr Booth confirmed that, as a liaison officer, Mr Woodroofe was the ‘point of contact’ between the AFP and ACT Health at the HECC. He told the Tribunal there were ‘a lot of demands’ and it was a ‘quick moving beast at the time, with many requests for police assistance, and therefore ‘a lot of people’ being diverted to the COVID Taskforce to assist with ‘COVID compliance checking’ and the ‘community response’, in addition to maintaining normal policing. Mr Booth did not specifically recall a ‘massive divergence’ between the AFP and ACT Health regarding the police role in quarantine measures. The AFP undertook COVID compliance checking, set ground rules around how they would do it, and ‘triaged’ requests for checking people’s compliance.  

29. Mr Booth was referred to the report of Dr Farrand in which she recorded that Mr Woodroofe had said a video call he attended, together with Mr Booth and Ms Binstead from the AFP and Ms Smith from ACT Health, was ‘terminated’ by Ms Smith due to the ‘rude and bullying behaviour’ of Mr Booth and Ms Binstead.[78] Mr Booth recalled a conversation with Ms Smith at that meeting, he had dialled into the call from home, and said there was ‘an argument’ between himself and Ms Binstead on one hand and Ms Smith on the other. Mr Booth however did not recall the content of the discussion but ‘certainly’ did not recall the call being terminated or being informed of that incident being reported ‘up the chain’ to his superiors. Mr Booth disagreed with the allegation that there was bullying behaviour in the meeting. He said there was a ‘disagreement’, but no bullying and could not recall what the matter was about.

    [78] Exhibit 4, page 66.

30. Mr Booth confirmed that he was not privy to the conversation on 11 September 2021 between Mr Woodroofe and Ms Binstead. However, Mr Booth had a subsequent telephone discussion with Mr Woodroofe on that date, in which ‘he stated he was upset for being corrected for speaking over D/Supt Binstead during the earlier meeting’.[79] Mr Booth told the Tribunal that Mr Woodroofe was ‘annoyed’ at being ‘called out’ at the meeting.

    [79] Exhibit 1, page 48.

1. Mr Booth was referred to an email chain commencing on 10 September 2021 with ACT Health requesting ACT Policing, through Mr Woodroofe as the liaison officer at the HECC, to conduct a COVID compliance check on a member of the public.[80] Mr Woodroofe sent that email request to the AFP’s COVID-19 response team.[81] That request was then sent to the COVID-19 compliance team leaders to conduct a check.[82] At 11.12am on 11 September 2021, one of the AFP’s COVID-19 compliance team leaders sent an email to other officers complaining about having to conduct those checks and ACT Health’s requests for them in circumstances where there were limited tools at their disposal.[83] That email was then forwarded to Mr Woodroofe at 3.28pm on 11 September 2021 with the statement that it was a ‘[s]mall rant for you when trying to speak with health [sic] about the compliance checks cases they send through’.[84] At 4.40pm on the same date, Mr Woodroofe replied and then approximately one hour later forwarded his email to Mr Booth.[85] He accepted that Mr Woodroofe’s email expressed his frustrations with the work, which were common because it was a ‘very, very busy time’, although he had not before expressed those frustrations to Mr Booth but it was ‘clear it was on the back of that email’. Mr Booth was referred to Mr Woodroofe’s statement in that email of 11 September 2021 that if ‘this is common and the teams are not happy with the jobs being sent through’, ‘we need a new system’, ‘if it’s only the ones I send I will step aside and go back to gunners’.[86] Mr Booth confirmed that was a reference to Gungahlin Police Station.

   [80] Ibid., pages 55-60.

   [81] Ibid., page 59.

   [82] Ibid., pages 58-59.

   [83] Ibid., pages 57-58.

   [84] Ibid., pages 56-57.

   [85] Ibid., pages 55-56.

   [86] Ibid., page 56.

2. Counsel referred Mr Booth to his written statement regarding Mr Woodroofe addressing that email to ‘Boss’. Mr Booth told the Tribunal that the email was not initially sent to him, but was ‘intended for me’, because it was first sent to someone at the same rank as Mr Woodroofe and the term ‘Boss’ was usually used for someone ‘who has a rank above yours’.[87] Mr Booth considered that Mr Woodroofe was ‘embarrassed’ by the ‘mistake’ because it was not intended for that recipient and Mr Woodroofe subsequently forwarded the email to Mr Booth during their conversation.[88]

   [87] Ibid., pages 48 and 55.

   [88] Ibid., page 55.

3. Mr Booth said that, at around 8pm on 11 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe initiated a text chat with him over approximately 20 minutes when they were both at home.[89] Mr Booth recorded in his written statement that Mr Woodroofe ‘appreciated the chat earlier, wanted things kept between [them] and he needed space to consider things and would like to sit down with A/Insp Willis and myself on Monday, which never eventuated, as he “trusted us”’.[90] Mr Woodroofe informed Mr Booth he was going to take a ‘mental health day’ the next day and asked him ‘to tell people he was simply sick’, which he did.[91] Mr Booth told the Tribunal, based on their conversation, he considered that Mr Woodroofe was ‘embarrassed’ at forwarding an email to the wrong officer and for whom it was not intended; it was ‘kind of the reason I was telling him he was doing a good job’ and they ‘appreciated the work he was doing’ to make him realise not to let it get out of proportion. Mr Booth further said he had already ‘chipped’ the other officer for their ‘attitude’ regarding a different matter and wanted to let Mr Woodroofe know that it was not just him the ‘subject of this’; everyone was under pressure, and he was trying to let Mr Woodroofe know that ‘he was being supported’.

   [89] Ibid., page 49.

   [90] Ibid.

   [91] Ibid.

4. Mr Booth told the Tribunal that he, Ms Binstead and Mr Willis were informed by another liaison officer about Mr Woodroofe’s long hours at the HECC.[92] He said there was a ‘massive concern’ from Ms Binstead, Mr Willis and himself after 11 September 2021 about Mr Woodroofe’s hours and long commute home. Mr Booth had previously been unaware of Mr Woodroofe’s working hours, which were longer than he was ‘led to believe’, and the one hour drive each way was ‘adding to his day’. Mr Booth said once they learnt about those hours, they made changes ‘there and then’, particularly ‘in light of the fact that’ Mr Woodroofe was ‘clearly heightened in his reaction’ to a relatively simple ‘rant’ or frustration from a colleague.

   [92] Ibid..

5. Mr Booth was referred to an email he was copied into from Ms Binstead on Tuesday, 14 September 2021 regarding the finalisation of a roster for the HECC liaison officers, ensuring Mr Woodroofe ‘can travel home safely’ and ‘not over servicing that position’ with three officers at the HECC at one time.[93] Mr Booth said the email picked up the discussions they had regarding formalising a better roster arrangement for the liaison officers, putting Mr Woodroofe ‘on days’ to make his commute ‘a bit safer’ and so that they could ‘better monitor’ work hours. On 15 September 2021, an HR advisor with the AFP emailed a new roster effective from 17 September 2021.[94] As previously detailed, later that day, Ms Binstead emailed Mr Woodroofe, among others, stating to the HECC team that ‘this will hopefully give you a more manageable work schedule and reduce those crazy stressful hours’.[95] Mr Woodroofe replied on 16 September 2021 that ‘[a]ll noted with thanks’ and that he had no issues.[96]

   [93] Exhibit 1, page 64.

   [94] Exhibit 1, pages 61-62.

   [95] Ibid.

   [96] Ibid., page 61.

6. Mr Booth agreed that, throughout the week after 11 September 2021, he was seeking to contact Mr Woodroofe via text and telephone calls without success. Mr Booth considered that Mr Woodroofe was occasionally reading the texts, but ‘not responding’. Mr Booth said this was concerning because he did not understand why Mr Woodroofe was not responding, ‘the roster was changing’, he had an earlier conversation about him ‘doing a good job’, and things were ‘being improved’ to make the job ‘less stressful’ for the members working in the HECC.

7. Mr Booth was then referred to the night of Friday, 17 September 2021.[97] He had tried calling Mr Woodroofe ‘a few times’, knowing he finished work at 8pm and then had an hour’s drive home. Mr Booth was ‘concerned’ that Mr Woodroofe was not returning his calls. They eventually spoke at 10.45pm, a ‘considerable time afterwards’, following Mr Booth calling Mr Woodroofe ‘a number of times’ to ensure he had arrived home safely. When Mr Woodroofe did answer, he ‘started laughing’ after Mr Booth told him that he had been trying to contact Mr Woodroofe, which Mr Booth found ‘odd’. Mr Woodroofe said he had been home ‘about an hour’, and he was ‘laughing strangely’ so Mr Booth asked whether he was ‘drunk’. Mr Woodroofe ‘laughed again’ and said, ‘Well, aren’t you?’ Mr Booth found this ‘extremely peculiar’. Mr Booth said he needed to speak to Mr Woodroofe when he returned to the office. Mr Booth told the Tribunal that he formed the view Mr Woodroofe was affected by alcohol because he was ‘slurring his words’. The conversation lasted ‘a few minutes’. Mr Booth considered Mr Woodroofe was intoxicated and ended the call. Shortly afterwards on 17 September 2021, Mr Booth contacted Ms Binstead because of his concern at Mr Woodroofe’s apparent intoxication only an hour after arriving home. They considered that ‘we obviously needed to make a change’ because ‘something was not working’ with Mr Woodroofe continuing in the position at the HECC and they wanted him to return to WPC where he was ‘visible’ to them.

   [97] Ibid., page 50.

8. The following day, Saturday, 18 September 2021, Mr Booth confirmed to the Tribunal, that he unsuccessfully telephoned Mr Woodroofe, but left a ‘firm message’ that he should ‘not ignore my call and that I expected a call in return’ and directed him to report to Mr Booth, as the ‘on duty Inspector’, at WPC on Monday, 20 September 2021.[98] Mr Booth told the Tribunal that he was ‘concerned’ about Mr Woodroofe and ‘didn’t want him to go back to the HECC’; his ‘behaviour was unusual’ and Mr Booth wanted to speak with him ‘face-to-face’. In this regard, Mr Booth said that he had not previously met Mr Woodroofe in-person.

   [98] Exhibit 1, page 51.

9. Under cross-examination, Mr Booth was referred to his statement about seeking to contact Mr Woodroofe in the days before he agreed to the proposed roster on 16 September 2021.[99] Mr Booth agreed that he would have contacted Mr Woodroofe on 14 and 15 September 2021 and, at the time, he ‘would have been aware’ that Mr Woodroofe was not working on those days. However, Mr Booth said that he was also ‘concerned’ for Mr Woodroofe’s ‘welfare’ and wanted to check on him even though it was ‘out of hours’. Mr Booth told the Tribunal that it was ‘reasonable’ to contact Mr Woodroofe because he knew that they had ‘concerns about his welfare’, which concerns Mr Woodroofe knew because Mr Booth had asked Mr Woodroofe to contact him. In this regard, Mr Booth said he would have informed Mr Woodroofe via text message that he wanted to speak to him ‘about how you’re travelling’ after the aforementioned internal AFP email correspondence involving Mr Woodroofe. He agreed that there was no reference in his statement to checking on Mr Woodroofe’s welfare or the provision of text messages.

   [99] Exhibit 1, pages 50 and 61.

10. Mr Booth considered that Mr Woodroofe would have had a day off on 12 September 2021 after he informed Mr Booth that he needed a ‘mental health day’. He agreed that it was reasonable for Mr Woodroofe to have his phone turned off when not working, but that the Signal app indicated that Mr Woodroofe, when off duty, had read Mr Booth’s text messages sent via that platform. Mr Booth considered that, if an officer is contacted by a ‘senior officer’ on days off asking to return their call, the officer would ‘normally’ return that call. He had no concerns for Mr Woodroofe’s mental health during the days of 16 or 17 September 2021 due to anything he had done, ‘apart from him not contacting me’ and then ‘not during the day’ on 17 September 2021, noting their telephone call later that night. Mr Booth told the Tribunal that Mr Woodroofe should have contacted him on 17 September 2021, he was checking that Mr Woodroofe had arrived home after work on that day given discussions about officers not working late, despite Mr Woodroofe then being off duty because Mr Booth was ‘checking on his welfare’. Mr Booth was ‘concerned’ when Mr Woodroofe was not returning his calls, particularly because Mr Woodroofe had not returned calls from the days beforehand. When they did speak, Mr Booth wanted to know why Mr Woodroofe had not returned his calls and was ‘checking on his welfare’.

11. Mr Booth agreed that his concerns arose due to Mr Woodroofe’s failure to respond to his communications, including because another liaison officer had informed Mr Booth on 15 September 2021 that Mr Woodroofe ‘never responds’.[100] When it was put to Mr Booth that that he should have known that the unresponsiveness was a general feature of Mr Woodroofe and not directed to Mr Booth, he replied that the other liaison officer had indicated that when a senior officer was calling it should be answered. Mr Booth told the Tribunal that ‘the concerns in my mind’ were ‘heightened’ because of Mr Woodroofe’s ‘own behaviour’, he wanted to find out if Mr Woodroofe was ‘okay’ and was ‘concerned for his welfare’.

    [100] Exhibit 1, page 51.

12. Mr Booth agreed that his concerns arose after Mr Woodroofe’s ‘stress’ following the phone call with Ms Binstead. However, Mr Booth told the Tribunal he could not identify the source of all of Mr Woodroofe’s stress, Mr Booth was concerned that Mr Woodroofe was ‘clearly stressed about something’, which was ‘overwhelming him’, and Mr Booth ‘wanted to help him get to the bottom of it and to help him resolve it’. Mr Booth said Mr Woodroofe was not engaging with him; while he was busy at work, he was not busy when off duty. The roster had been changed from 17 September 2021, there were more people working and there was better monitoring of people’s workloads. He said Mr Woodroofe was ‘clearly upset about something’ and Mr Booth was ‘obviously concerned for him’. He agreed that he considered Mr Woodroofe was experiencing a higher than usual degree of stress at that time and to having ‘concerns’ for Mr Woodroofe’s mental state. Mr Booth also agreed that a supervisor should be more careful in dealing with an employee experiencing impaired mental health.

13. When Mr Booth called Mr Woodroofe on Friday, 17 September 2021, he was direct with him and told him he expected a response. Mr Booth disagreed that the way he spoke to Mr Woodroofe was not understanding or supportive given his concerns for Mr Woodroofe’s mental health; he did not think he could have done it better. In this regard, Mr Booth said that he tried to approach Mr Woodroofe ‘a number of times’ with text messages. Mr Booth agreed that he directed Mr Woodroofe to contact him and to attend WPC, they spoke late at night, he considered that Mr Woodroofe ‘sounded’ drunk, although he acknowledged that they had never met before, but they had spoken over several weeks and Mr Booth was an ‘experienced police officer’. Mr Booth disagreed that he should have known that their conversation was likely to cause Mr Woodroofe stress. Mr Booth told the Tribunal that he was ‘trying to check’ that Mr Woodroofe had arrived home safely, he considered that Mr Woodroofe was ‘clearly stressed from work, something [was] going on that I wanted to get to the bottom of’, but Mr Woodroofe’s reaction on the phone was ‘bizarre’ and he did not seem stressed when they spoke because Mr Woodroofe was ‘laughing’.

14. On 18 September 2021, Mr Booth said he left Mr Woodroofe a ‘firm’ voice message that he should ‘not ignore my call and that I expected a call in return’.[101] He told the Tribunal that Mr Woodroofe had been ignoring his calls up until the night before on 17 September 2021 and he did not want there to be any doubt that he wanted Mr Woodroofe to return his call. He agreed that he could have ‘potentially’ been ‘gentler’ with his message, but wanted there to be no doubt that Mr Woodroofe was to return his call and to start back at WPC on the Monday. When Mr Woodroofe called back, Mr Booth wanted to ‘leave no room for any misunderstanding’ that he was to report to WPC to have a conversation about Mr Woodroofe returning to the AFP Taskforce at WPC and not the HECC. He disagreed with Mr Woodroofe’s evidence that Mr Booth provided no reason for wanting to speak to him other than being concerned about him and Mr Booth maintained his written statement from January 2022 regarding the conversation was correct.[102]

    [101] Exhibit 1, page 51.

    [102] Ibid., page 51.

15. Mr Booth agreed that, in his experience, it can be stressful for a person he supervises to receive a formal direction. Counsel for Mr Woodroofe asked whether a formal direction could be too heavy handed. Mr Booth said it ‘depends on the circumstances’ and a formal direction is ‘not necessarily heavy handed’, it ‘just means there is no room to misunderstand’. He ‘never used the words formal direction’; he gave a ‘lawful direction’ to Mr Woodroofe. Mr Booth agreed that he left no room for misunderstanding in telling Mr Woodroofe to return to WPC, rather than the HECC.

16. Following Mr Booth’s 10.45pm call with Mr Woodroofe on 17 September 2021, he telephoned Ms Binstead, and they took the decision that Mr Woodroofe would not return to the liaison officer role. Mr Booth said that, on 15 September 2021, there had been discussions and consideration about whether to bring Mr Woodroofe out of the HECC. However, when Mr Booth ‘got the reaction’ he did from Mr Woodroofe during their call on 17 September 2021, ‘we decided, well we’re going to do it now, we are bringing him out’. The reasons included Mr Woodroofe’s stress following events on 11 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe not responding to Mr Booth’s messages, Mr Woodroofe’s response on 17 September 2021 after work, his apparent intoxication so soon after finishing work that day and his ‘inability to communicate’ for two days when off duty.

17. Mr Booth confirmed that he did not first discuss with Mr Woodroofe the decision to remove him from the liaison role. He told the Tribunal that removing Mr Woodroofe from higher duties was not ‘on the table’ at that point. He and Ms Binstead had agreed on 17 September 2021 to remove Mr Woodroofe from the HECC role ‘for his own good’ and to ‘bring him back to Winchester’; Mr Booth was not empowered to make a decision regarding higher duties. Mr Booth agreed that he had not spoken to Mr Woodroofe before it was decided on 17 September 2021 to remove him from the liaison role, they were ‘going to discuss it on the Monday’, and they had not spoken to the AFP’s HR division.

18. Counsel put to Mr Booth that they should not have made the decision late on 17 September 2021 to remove Mr Woodroofe from his role at that time. Mr Booth said they were ‘concerned for his welfare’, he would ‘find him a role’ at WPC and did not agree that they could have been less hasty or more considered in that decision-making process. Mr Booth said that they were removing a member from the role, people get moved all the time in a taskforce and no one ‘owns’ a particular role in a taskforce. He also said that higher duties can be rescinded at ‘any point in time’ by a delegate.

19. Mr Booth told the Tribunal that it was ‘not unreasonable’ to have earlier informed the other liaison officer that they were likely moving Mr Woodroofe out of the HECC, because they were preparing that officer for another officer to go in and assist him. Mr Booth also said it was ‘not unreasonable’ to tell other people that Mr Woodroofe would likely be moved; it had not been decided, they were ‘thinking about doing it’, ‘probably going to bring him out’, and he provided a ‘pre-warning’ to the officer so it was not ‘a surprise’ to them when they asked Mr Woodroofe to ‘come have a chat with us’.

20. Counsel asked whether Mr Booth should have found out how Mr Woodroofe was going and whether his concerns were justified before Mr Woodroofe was removed from the HECC. Mr Booth told the Tribunal it was a ‘joint decision’, he did not have ‘the chance to talk with him’ because Mr Woodroofe ‘never engaged with me’; he ‘didn’t engage with any of us’. Mr Booth said he tried to talk to Mr Woodroofe, but he ‘never came back to work’. He was asked to come into work on the Monday but did not return. It was put to Mr Booth that they took away Mr Woodroofe’s role before providing him with a chance to address their concerns. In response, Mr Booth told the Tribunal that ‘I’ve never been able to speak to him’; ‘we had reached a certain point’, Mr Booth had shared his concerns with Ms Binstead, a decision was made to get Mr Woodroofe ‘in on Monday’ to discuss their concerns, but that ‘never occurred’.

21. On 22 September 2021, Mr Willis communicated to Mr Woodroofe that he was being removed from the HECC. Mr Booth considered that the AFP Taskforce maintained contact with Mr Woodroofe during his two weeks’ quarantine from 20 September 2021, but Mr Booth agreed that he did not personally contact Mr Woodroofe after 18 September 2021.

22. In re-examination, Mr Booth confirmed that the text message conversation initiated by Mr Woodroofe on 11 September 2021 was ‘very important’ because it ‘sets a tone’; Mr Woodroofe was ‘clearly a bit low’ and Mr Booth was ‘pumping his tyres up’, telling him ‘he’s doing a great job’, not to ‘make any rash decisions’, and providing him support, including for his ‘mental health day’. Their later conversation on 17 September 2021 was also important in Mr Booth’s assessment of Mr Woodroofe because it demonstrated ‘a complete change in character’, Mr Booth did not understand why Mr Woodroofe was ‘behaving’ as he was, how he had apparently become intoxicated ‘so quickly’ after finishing work, and considered it ‘wiser’ to bring Mr Woodroofe back to the workplace to ‘keep an eye on him’, with ‘more support, AFP support, wrapped around him in the workplace’ than in another agency with the attendant pressure.

1. The following analysis sets out the Tribunal’s findings regarding each of the incidents claimed to have resulted in Mr Woodroofe’s injury.

2. The Tribunal first notes however that, in assessing Mr Woodroofe’s credibility and the reliability of his evidence, the Tribunal has taken into account his accepted psychological condition and the difficulties faced by a person with such an illness giving evidence in the unfamiliar and stressful environment of a Tribunal hearing. Having made appropriate allowance for the above matters, after careful consideration of Mr Woodroofe’s evidence, the Tribunal formed the view that it should be approached with caution. As set out above, Mr Woodroofe made three written statements in these proceedings. The first statement made on 8 December 2021 referred to ‘the incidents of bullying that have occurred during my employment with the AFP and the resulting workplace injury’.[168] He listed eight incidents ‘of bullying’ since September 2021 that were said to have caused his injury, the first four being the incidents set out in Mr Woodroofe’s subsequent Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions of September 2023.[169] Later in June 2024, Mr Woodroofe provided a history to Dr Farrand which made further allegations, this time related to Ms Binstead’s claimed prior behaviour towards him that was not detailed in his initial statement from late 2021.[170] And, by October 2022, Mr Woodroofe’s subsequent written statement increased to sixteen the number of claimed workplace incidents the cause of his injury or then claimed injuries.[171]

   [168] Exhibit 1, page 17.

   [169] Ibid. See also Applicant’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 18 September 2023, paragraph 3.9.

   [170] Exhibit 4, page 66.

   [171] Exhibit 2, pages 23-39.

3. To provide a minor example of the inconsistencies in Mr Woodroofe’s evidence, in November 2021, Mr Woodroofe told the psychologist Mr Taylor that, after the meeting with ACT Health and other agencies on 11 September 2021, he ‘found 6 inbound calls’ on his phone from Ms Binstead and he returned those calls.[172] In Mr Woodroofe’s written statements of December 2021 and October 2002, he merely noted that he ‘received a phone call’ from Ms Binstead on that date.[173] However, in March 2023, Dr Le recorded that Mr Woodroofe ‘saw 12 missed calls from Supt Binstead’ and, in June 2024, he reportedly told Dr Farrand that ‘he had 17 missed calls’ from Ms Binstead following the meeting on 11 September 2021.[174]

   [172] Exhibit 1, page 14.

   [173] Ibid., page 17.

   [174] Exhibit 4, pages 8 and 66.

   Incident One

4. It is trite to observe that Mr Woodroofe and Ms Binstead had very different recollections of their telephone call on 11 September 2021. Indeed, they both had differing views about their interactions in advance of that call. For example, Mr Woodroofe claimed, at least to Dr Farrand in 2024 and in his third written statement dated 23 February 2023, that he received frequent verbal abuse and harassment from Ms Binstead.[175] Whereas Ms Binstead’s evidence was that she had never yelled at Mr Woodroofe or treated him ‘aggressively’, the pair had very little daily interaction, she was not his direct supervisor and Mr Woodroofe was stationed in a different geographic location once he commenced the liaison officer role at the HECC in or around March 2021, well before the claimed incidents the subject of these proceedings.[176] She was also not challenged about the veracity of Mr Woodroofe’s claims of her poor behaviour preceding their telephone call on 11 September 2021.

   [175] Exhibit 4, pages 66 and 81-90.

   [176] Exhibit 1, pages 30-45; Exhibit 4, pages 97-100.

5. Ms Binstead told the Tribunal that there was tension between the AFP and ACT Health regarding their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to the enforcement of measures enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting on 11 September 2021 between those and other agencies was to discuss the establishment of a second quarantine facility in the ACT.[177] She was tasked by the AFP to convey its position at the meeting in relation to what it considered to be its remit. Ms Binstead acknowledged that Mr Woodroofe was not to know that she was so briefed. Mr Woodroofe attended the meeting as the liaison officer located at the HECC and because he had conducted a physical inspection of the proposed site. Ms Binstead was unaware that Mr Woodroofe was attending that meeting, which explained why she had not discussed her objectives for the meeting with him in advance of it occurring. At the meeting, Mr Woodroofe, attending in-person, was asked for his views on the proposed site’s security, which he conveyed. It is worth noting that the ACT Health representatives, Ms Smith and Ms Spencer, stated that before providing those views, Mr Woodroofe had said he would ‘have to defer to mam’, being Ms Binstead.[178] However, neither Mr Woodroofe nor Ms Binstead made such an assertion. Moreover, the preference of Ms Binstead for Mr Woodroofe to defer to her as the senior officer at the meeting was one of the messages she delivered to him in their subsequent telephone call. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept the evidence that Mr Woodroofe stated at the meeting that he would have to defer to Ms Binstead.

   [177] Exhibit 1, page 32.

   [178] Exhibit 4, pages 91 and 94.

6. Towards the end of the meeting, Ms Binstead, appearing remotely, was asked whether she had anything to add to the discussion. She sought to bring the meeting back to the AFP’s overall position in relation to its remit on COVID-19 compliance and enforcement, however she felt that the meeting had progressed to a point where it was difficult to convey that message.  

7. After the meeting, Ms Binstead telephoned Mr Woodroofe. The Tribunal has set out above the various inconsistent claims made by Mr Woodroofe about the number of calls he received at that time from Ms Binstead. In any event, Ms Binstead’s stated purpose in calling Mr Woodroofe was to get his ‘read out’ from the meeting in circumstances where he had attended in-person and she had only dialled-in by telephone and to convey her preference that he should defer to her, or the relevant senior officer, in future meetings as was AFP protocol and because of the ‘strategic message’ she was tasked to deliver on behalf of the AFP as its senior representative at the meeting. Ms Binstead agreed that Mr Woodroofe had not, at that meeting, committed the AFP to any expenditure in relation to the proposed facility and did not accuse him of doing so during their subsequent telephone call. Ms Binstead also understood why Mr Woodroofe was initially addressed by the meeting’s chair to discuss the site’s security given he had conducted a site visit and she also acknowledged that he had delivered that message appropriately and in line with her separate briefing on the matter.[179]  

   [179] Exhibit, 1 pages 39-41. 

8. In contrast, Mr Woodroofe claimed that, in their telephone call, Ms Binstead was ‘very rude and aggressive’ and told him that she should have spoken at the meeting, not him, that she knew what to say, he should have deferred to her and not said anything and that he had ‘dropped us in it’ by committing the agency to expenditure on the proposed site.[180] As with the number of missed calls Mr Woodroofe claimed he received from Ms Binstead, his recollection of their interaction shifted between his first two written statements, with the latter containing additional wording attributed to Ms Binstead regarding the matters she was said to have discussed with him.[181] Ms Binstead disputed Mr Woodroofe’s account of their telephone call, including her tone and language during that discussion.[182]

   [180] Exhibit 1, page 17.

   [181] See Exhibit 2, pages 23-24. 

   [182] Exhibit 1, page 34.

9. Ms Binstead wrote in her statement of January 2022 that their conversation lasted only a few minutes. She is an experienced leader in the AFP and has, understandably, had many difficult internal conversations during the course of her career. She did not consider the conversation with Mr Woodroofe to be a difficult one. While Ms Binstead may have spoken directly to Mr Woodroofe, and she accepted that she became frustrated as the call progressed given his non-acceptance of her advice and his tone during that call, her evidence was that she did not embarrass or shout at him or use rude or aggressive language. Ms Binstead further stated that she was not agitated by the matter, and she was calm and measured. Ms Binstead is a senior police officer of more than 26 years’ standing. She presented to the Tribunal as a very thoughtful, mild-mannered and professional person. The evidence of Mr Woodroofe regarding Ms Binstead’s language and behaviour during the telephone call and on other purported occasions was deeply at odds with her presentation to the Tribunal and the stated purpose of that call. While uncertainty naturally remained about what actually occurred during that conversation, on balance, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms Binstead.      

10. As a result, the Tribunal considers that Ms Binstead’s action constituted ‘a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal)’ taken in respect of Mr Woodroofe’s employment, pursuant to subsection 5A(2)(b) of the SRC Act. That action was held in Radulovic and Comcare (2010) AATA 777 (at [77]) to be ‘the least severe – or most benign’ of the corrective administrative actions which can be made by an employer. The Tribunal considers that the term ‘counselling’ captures the act of advising and giving guidance, direction or instruction. That is what Ms Binstead conveyed to Mr Woodroofe during their telephone call. Moreover, as a differently constituted Tribunal recently found in Martin and Comcare [2024] AATA 3113 at [92], a meeting between an employee and their supervisor was ‘administrative action directed to the applicant’s employment itself, focused as it was on how the applicant was to behave in the workplace, rather than any specific task or work that the applicant was to perform’. Here, Ms Binstead relevantly conveyed her preference for Mr Woodroofe to defer to the senior police officer at future meetings. The Tribunal does not accept, as claimed by Mr Woodroofe, that for him to have deferred to Ms Binstead after being asked for his views on the proposed site’s security would have been ‘completely nonsensical and embarrassing’.[183] Given deferring to the more senior officer was AFP protocol, it appears far from nonsensical that Ms Binstead, as she wished had occurred, would have been deferred to by Mr Woodroofe to speak first on behalf of the AFP at the meeting. It would also not have been ‘embarrassing’, the only embarrassment seemingly emanating from Mr Woodroofe in being, in Mr Willis’ view, ‘very lightly’ chastised by Ms Binstead for not following protocol and deferring to her at the meeting.[184]

    [183] Exhibit 1, pages 17-18.

    [184] Ibid., page 73. See also Exhibit 1, page 49.

11. The Tribunal also notes that Mr Woodroofe continued working after the telephone call on 11 September 2021, he initiated a text message exchange with Mr Booth that evening, including to inform him that he was taking a ‘mental health day’ the following day but was ‘ok’, and he returned to work on 13 September 2021.[185] He also continued to work pursuant to his roster beyond that time until he was required to quarantine on 19 September 2021. There were also other matters at play at that time beyond the telephone discussion with Ms Binstead, including the internal AFP email correspondence on 11 September 2021 which expressed displeasure at the referrals from ACT Health for compliance checks and which were processed by Mr Woodroofe as the liaison officer for the AFP in the HECC. However, as set out above, there was no evidence that Mr Woodroofe sought medical treatment or attention from 11 September 2021 until 5 October 2021. In this regard, Associate Professor Khalid opined that, even on Mr Woodroofe’s account, this incident did not feature in the presentation as being an operative stressor or causative of his psychological condition.

    [185] Exhibit 8.

12. The Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant incident constituted a reasonable counselling action in respect of Mr Woodroofe’s employment, noting again that such action can be formal or informal. Additionally, subsection 5A(2)(e) of the SRC Act, provides that reasonable administrative action includes ‘anything reasonable done in connection with an action’, such as ‘a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal)’.

13. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal does not accept the submission that the telephone call amounted to ‘supervision’ of Mr Woodroofe’s employment by Ms Binstead, which action is not administrative for the purposes of the SRC Act. While Ms Binstead agreed with the proposition that she was supervising Mr Woodroofe in that telephone call, plainly such evidence does not mean the statutory formula under section 5A of the SRC Act is not met. That is a matter for the Tribunal to determine. The Tribunal has found that Ms Binstead’s action was reasonable counselling action in providing advice regarding the preference for a more junior AFP officer to defer to a senior officer at meetings such as that held on 11 September 2021.

14. Having found that the administrative action was reasonable, the Tribunal must also be satisfied that it was taken in a reasonable manner. There is no standard of perfection required, or a finding that it could have been better carried out. In Thappa and Comcare [2013] AATA 629, a differently constituted Tribunal found that, while aspects of an employee’s performance review process could have been improved, the actions taken to address the employee’s underperformance were reasonably undertaken.[186] The actions must be taken in an objectively reasonable manner. Reasonable action ‘does not have to be perfect’ but ‘it has to be tolerable and fair’.[187] As a result of the Tribunal’s above findings, it is satisfied that Ms Binstead’s reasonable administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner in respect of Mr Woodroofe’s employment pursuant to subsection 5A of the SRC Act.

    [186] At [77]. See also Comcare v Martinez (No 2) (2013) 212 FCR 272 at [81].

    [187] Beasley and Comcare [2012] AATA 411, at [118] citing Wilson and Comcare [2010] AATA 396.

    Incidents Two and Three

15. Given their interlinked nature, it is convenient to deal with incidents two and three together. These concern telephone calls and a voice message between Mr Woodroofe and his immediate supervisor, Mr Booth, on 17 and 18 September 2021.

16. By way of background, in advance of those incidents, and as referred to above, on the evening of 11 September 2021, while Mr Booth was off duty at 8.02pm, Mr Woodroofe initiated a text message exchange stating that he appreciated their earlier conversation on that date, was taking a ‘mental health day’, he needed ‘space to consider things’ and did not want to further discuss until Monday when he ‘can sit down with you and [Mr Willis] who i [sic] trust’.[188] Mr Booth replied with multiple consecutive text messages that, among other things, it was ‘fine’ for Mr Woodroofe to take leave, expressed confidence in, and appreciation for, the job being performed by Mr Woodroofe, their reliance on him in the liaison officer role, acknowledging the pressure of that role including the referral process from ACT Health and the attitude of another AFP officer regarding that matter and that it was time to adjust the ‘model’.[189]

    [188] Exhibit 8.

    [189] Exhibit 8.

17. Additionally, after 11 September 2021, Mr Booth had discussions with Ms Binstead, Mr Willis and another liaison officer, during which they became aware of the increased hours Mr Woodroofe was working and sought to identify a solution, which led to the implementation of a new roster for the liaison officers at the HECC from 17 September 2021.[190] For example, on 14 September 2021, Ms Binstead sent an email to Mr Willis, and copied to Mr Booth, further to their discussion ‘last night’ and requesting the finalisation of a new roster, including an adjustment so that Mr Woodroofe worked ‘days’ in order to ‘travel home safely’.[191] On 15 September 2021, the new roster was issued and Ms Binstead sent an email, which addressed the ‘HECC team’, including Mr Woodroofe, and noted that the new roster would hopefully provide them with ‘a more manageable work schedule and reduce those crazy stressful hours’, be ‘EA compliant’ despite ‘the surge posture we are operating within’ and that there was ‘no expectation that you work more than your rostered shifts, unless naturally in exceptional circumstances’.[192] The following day, on 16 September 2021, Mr Woodroofe replied to Ms Binstead’s email, noted the new roster ‘with thanks’ and said that he had no issues.[193]

    [190] Exhibit 1, pages 42-50.

    [191] Ibid., page 45.

    [192] Ibid., pages 42-43 and 61-62.

    [193] Exhibit 1, page 61.

18. Mr Booth’s evidence was that he sought to contact Mr Woodroofe in the days before he agreed to that new roster to ‘ask how he was and to see if he wanted to have a phone call, also asking him to call me when I didn’t hear back’.[194] This exchange occurred via the ‘Signal’ messaging platform but documentary evidence of that communication was not produced in these proceedings.[195] Mr Booth stated that, while Mr Woodroofe read those messages, he did not respond to them and Mr Booth had made these attempts to contact Mr Woodroofe ‘to check on his welfare since each of us held concerns about his reaction to relatively minor issues’.[196]

    [194] Ibid., page 50.

    [195] Ibid.

    [196] Ibid.

19. There was evidence before the Tribunal that unsuccessful calls between Mr Booth and Mr Woodroofe occurred at 1.39pm and 4.54pm on 17 September 2021.[197] Mr Woodroofe was scheduled to conclude work at 8pm that night under the new roster. Mr Booth’s evidence was that he had difficulty contacting Mr Woodroofe that night and spoke to Ms Binstead ‘to outline my concerns’.[198] Eventually, Mr Booth spoke to Mr Woodroofe at approximately 10.45pm on 17 September 2021. Mr Woodroofe and Mr Booth were both at their respective places of residence and off duty at that time. 

    [197] Exhibit 8.

    [198] Exhibit 1, page 50.

20. As with incident one detailed above, Mr Booth recalled a ‘very different conversation’ to that outlined by Mr Woodroofe.[199] Mr Booth’s evidence was that he told Mr Woodroofe that he was ‘calling to check in as I had trouble contacting him’.[200] As an experienced police officer, and due to Mr Woodroofe’s behaviour during that call, Mr Booth formed the impression during their discussion that Mr Woodroofe was intoxicated and held concerns that such a state could have been reached so soon after Mr Woodroofe returned home following his one hour commute from the HECC in the ACT.[201] Mr Booth denied using certain phrases attributed to him by Mr Woodroofe from their conversation, but acknowledged that he had informed Mr Woodroofe that ‘if I contact him I expect him to respond’.[202] In circumstances where Mr Booth considered Mr Woodroofe to be intoxicated, he indicated to Mr Woodroofe that he would speak to him the following day.[203]

    [199] Ibid.

    [200] Ibid.

    [201] Ibid.

    [202] Exhibit 1, page 50.

    [203] Ibid.

21. In contrast, Mr Woodroofe claimed that Mr Booth told him to stop work, to ‘stand down’, and that he expected a response to his messages or calls.[204] This allegedly made Mr Woodroofe ‘extremely confused’ and upset because he ‘was not sure in what context I had been called’.[205] The Tribunal does not accept that evidence. It stands in stark contrast to the evidence of Mr Booth’s handling of Mr Woodroofe in advance of that time. Moreover, as detailed above, Mr Woodroofe had, before that call on 17 September 2021, expressed on 11 September 2021 his trust in Mr Booth (and Mr Willis), they had had a ‘chat’ which Mr Woodroofe appreciated, Mr Woodroofe agreed at the hearing that Mr Booth was ‘extremely caring’ in his text messages on 11 September 2021, and Mr Booth had approved him taking his ‘mental health day’ and was, in his words, pumping up Mr Woodroofe’s tyres in text messages late on 11 September 2021 with words of encouragement and support.[206] However, in Mr Woodroofe’s second written statement of October 2022, he claimed that on 17 September 2021 Mr Booth was ‘extremely angry, and acting in a bizarre manner, even allowing for his normal rudeness toward me’.[207] Despite this, Mr Woodroofe’s told the Tribunal that Mr Booth was neither supportive nor unsupportive of him on or around 11 September 2021. In addition, and despite the documentary evidence regarding Mr Woodroofe’s appreciation for Mr Booth’s support on 11 September 2021, he told Dr Le that on that date he ‘got a call from Supt Booth and told him I wasn’t okay’, he needed a day off, and ‘he just got angry with me and hung up’.[208] Furthermore, Mr Woodroofe claimed that he ‘reached out to [Mr Booth] again, and he just laughed me off’.[209] The Tribunal finds that Mr Woodroofe’s account and evidence does not accord with the balance of the evidence regarding Mr Booth’s conduct towards Mr Woodroofe.  

    [204] Ibid., page 18.

    [205] Ibid.

    [206] Exhibit 8.

    [207] Exhibit 2, page 26.

    [208] Exhibit 4, page 9.

    [209] Ibid.

1. Mr Booth is a long-standing AFP employee of more than 34 years.[210] He presented to the Tribunal as a calm, deliberative and professional officer, in contrast to Mr Woodroofe’s portrayal in these proceedings of his purported behaviour. The Tribunal does not consider that Mr Booth’s behaviour was unreasonable or that he should have approached the matter in a different form. The thread of the evidence commencing from Mr Booth’s ‘chat’ with Mr Woodroofe on 11 September 2021, the subsequent text exchange that evening initiated by Mr Woodroofe, to the implementation of the new roster in the following days, the contact attempts Mr Booth made in the lead up to that roster and up until 17 September 2021 and through to the relevant telephone call late on that date, demonstrated that Mr Booth, as Mr Woodroofe’s direct supervisor, was understandably concerned about his welfare, unresponsiveness to various forms of communication and apparent intoxication. In light of the above findings, the Tribunal does not accept that Mr Booth was ‘heavy-handed’ or behaved unfairly in contacting Mr Woodroofe.

   [210] Exhibit 1., page 47. 

2. Based on a consideration of the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the telephone call on 17 September 2021, albeit late at night, and its content as accepted by the Tribunal, was reasonable. The Tribunal finds that it amounted to a welfare check on Mr Woodroofe by Mr Booth given the nature of all that had preceded that telephone call. Mr Woodroofe had finished work at approximately 8pm, had a one hour commute home, was consuming alcohol at home and was contacted at 10.45pm. While late at night, in all the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. Given their concerns for Mr Woodroofe’s welfare since at least 11 September 2021, his unresponsiveness to communications and long commute after work which had prompted others to check he had arrived home safely, the Tribunal finds it entirely reasonable for a colleague, being Mr Woodroofe’s supervisor to seek to ensure he was alright, including because of their earlier discussions from 11 September 2021. Indeed, inaction at that time by Mr Woodroofe’s employer may have been unreasonable and potentially negligent.

3. As set out above in these reasons, following Mr Booth’s call with Mr Woodroofe, he spoke to Ms Binstead and, given their shared concerns about his welfare and apparent intoxication so soon after finishing work, they agreed that Mr Woodroofe should not return to the HECC but report to Winchester on the Monday (being 20 September 2021).[211]

   [211] Ibid., page 50.

4. On 18 September 2021, Mr Booth unsuccessfully sought to contact Mr Woodroofe and left a ‘firm’ voice message for him to return the call, which Mr Booth considered was ‘a fair and lawful direction’.[212] Mr Woodroofe did return the call and Mr Booth directed him to report to Winchester on the Monday.[213] He had made ‘significant reasonable attempts’ to keep Mr Woodroofe ‘engaged and support his welfare’.[214] Mr Booth’s evidence was that his lawful direction was made because he did not want there to be any misunderstanding from Mr Woodroofe; he was ‘genuinely concerned about him’ and did not consider ‘it would have been healthy or wise for him to go back to the HECC while his behaviour was increasingly unusual’.[215] Mr Booth did not consider it worthwhile discussing the matter on the telephone because he preferred to meet face-to-face with Mr Woodroofe, noting again that they had never before met each other in-person.[216] Mr Booth denied Mr Woodroofe’s allegation that he was ‘aggressive, impersonal, rude, and angry’.[217] Again, the Tribunal finds that such characterisations do not accord with the balance of the evidence in these proceedings regarding Mr Booth’s conduct towards Mr Woodroofe, including Mr Woodroofe’s own contemporaneous statements in documentary evidence about Mr Booth’s support and the trust he had for his supervisor.

   [212] Exhibit 1, pages 18-19 and 51.

   [213] Ibid.

   [214] Ibid., page 51.

   [215] Ibid.

   [216] Ibid.

   [217] Ibid.

5. Furthermore, the text exchange on 18 September 2021 between Mr Woodroofe and Mr Willis, following the former’s telephone discussion with Mr Booth highlighted the concern for Mr Woodroofe from Mr Willis, Mr Booth and Ms Binstead.[218] Mr Woodroofe informed Mr Willis that he had just been told by Mr Booth to report to Winchester on Monday because he was ‘concerned about me’.[219] That message did not contain any suggestion of the later allegations levelled against Mr Booth by Mr Woodroofe from their conversation of the same date. Tellingly, Mr Willis replied that ‘[w]e do worry about you mate’, including because of his long work hours and long commute, and meeting on Monday was a ‘good chance to clear the air’, with the new roster also providing for shifts at Winchester, rather than the HECC.[220] When Mr Woodroofe replied to Mr Willis that he thought that he was ‘just gunna tap out’, Mr Willis immediately telephoned him to confirm that he was not suicidal.[221] The Tribunal considers that action demonstrated the basis for, and level of, the concern for Mr Woodroofe around that time by the relevant officers.

   [218] Exhibit 6.

   [219] Ibid.

   [220] Ibid.

   [221] Ibid. See also Exhibit 1, page 74.

6. Based on all the evidence and the above findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Booth’s telephone calls to Mr Woodroofe on 17 and 18 September 2021, and his voice message on the latter date, were ‘reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal)’, that was taken in a reasonable manner in respect of Mr Woodroofe’s employment, pursuant to subsection 5A(2)(b) of the SRC Act. As set out above, subsection 5A(2)(e) of the SRC Act, provides that reasonable administrative action includes ‘anything reasonable done in connection with an action’, such as ‘a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal)’. As Mr Woodroofe’s supervisor, Mr Booth was checking on his welfare and also seeking, through his verbal direction, to assist Mr Woodroofe to achieve and maintain a satisfactory standard of work performance.[222]

   [222] Magro and Comcare [2013] AATA 938 at [32].

7. In addition, the Tribunal is satisfied that incidents one to three may also fall within the exclusion under subsection 5A(2)(f) of the SRC Act, relevantly being ‘anything reasonable done in connection with the employee’s failure’ to ‘retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment’, because they formed part of the factors that led to Mr Woodroofe being considered for removal from the liaison officer role at the HECC and his ultimate removal from that role. As was held in Comcare v Drinkwater [2018] FCAFC 62 (Drinkwater) at [70], a determination ‘by the employer that the employee will move from his or her existing post to a new post in the employer’s employ involves administrative action specifically directed to that employee and specifically about that employee’.[223]

   [223] See also paragraphs [68]-[69] and Moradi v Comcare [2024] FCA 812 at [22] and [36].

8. As set out above in relation to incident one, there is no standard of perfection required in relation to the administrative action, although it must be taken in an objectively reasonable manner. Reasonable action ‘does not have to be perfect’ but ‘it has to be tolerable and fair’.[224] While there may have been another way to approach Mr Woodroofe in relation to his supervisor’s concerns, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Booth’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that incidents two and three met the relevant statutory test under section 5A of the SRC Act.

   [224] Beasley and Comcare [2012] AATA 411, at [118] citing Wilson and Comcare [2010] AATA 396.

   Incident Four

9. On 22 September 2021, and as a result of concerns held by Ms Binstead, Mr Booth and Mr Willis, the latter informed Mr Woodroofe that ACT Policing were scaling back their involvement with ACT Health and that he could return to the COVID Taskforce at Winchester or to his gazetted police station at Gungahlin.[225] Mr Woodroofe chose the latter and claimed that he was shocked and perceived that he was removed from the liaison officer role without a proper explanation.[226]

   [225] Exhibit 1, page 52.

   [226] Ibid., page 19.

10. Having regard to the totality of the evidence, and the Tribunal’s above findings, it is satisfied that the situation involving Mr Woodroofe had reached a ‘tipping point’ and the action to remove him from the liaison officer was justified in all the circumstances. The Tribunal accepts the evidence that no final or formal decision to remove Mr Woodroofe from that role had been taken on or around 17 September 2021, following Mr Booth’s telephone call with Mr Woodroofe, but that his removal was a likely outcome, and such a decision would have been further informed by the proposed meeting with Mr Woodroofe on the following Monday at Winchester. That was a reasonable course in the circumstances, but the meeting did not occur because Mr Woodroofe was required to quarantine from 19 September 2021.

11. Even if such a decision was final on or around 17 September 2021, based on the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that such a decision was reasonable given the concerns held for Mr Woodroofe’s welfare and his continuation in that role. It was open to Mr Booth, as Mr Woodroofe’s immediate supervisor, to make such a determination and in light of the evidence that was the appropriate course in the circumstances. As stated above, the Federal Court in Drinkwater at [70] held that a determination ‘by the employer that the employee will move from his or her existing post to a new post in the employer’s employ involves administrative action specifically directed to that employee and specifically about that employee’.[227]

    [227] See also paragraphs [68]-[69] and Moradi v Comcare [2024] FCA 812 at [22] and [36].

12. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the removal of Mr Woodroofe from the liaison officer role at the HECC was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner and fell squarely within the exclusion in subsection 5A(2)(f) of the SRC Act, relevantly including ‘anything reasonable done in connection with the employee’s failure’ to ‘retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment’. As previously set out above in relation to incidents one to three, there is no standard of perfection required in relation to the administrative action, although it must be taken in an objectively reasonable manner and be tolerable and fair. The Tribunal is satisfied that incident four met the relevant statutory test under section 5A of the SRC Act.

    Conclusion on reasonable administrative action

13. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the relevant administrative actions taken by the AFP were reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner in respect of Mr Woodroofe’s employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Mr Woodroofe’s ‘disease’ was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment with the AFP and it is therefore not an ‘injury’ as defined by section 5A of the SRC Act.

    Is Comcare liable to pay compensation to Mr Woodroofe for an ‘injury’ pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act?

14. As a result of the Tribunal’s above finding regarding the application of the reasonable administrative action exclusion in subsection 5A(1) of the SRC Act, Mr Woodroofe has not suffered an ‘injury’, as defined by the SRC Act, and Comcare is therefore not liable to pay him compensation under section 14 of the SRC Act.

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

I certify that the preceding 216 (two hundred and sixteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member W Frost.

.....................[SGD].................................................

Associate

Dated: 9 October 2024

Date(s) of hearing:	6 to 9 August 2024
Date final submissions received:	14 December 2023
Counsel for Applicant:	Mr Andrew Schofield
Solicitor for Applicant:	Mr David Tarrant, Carrol & O’Dea Lawyers
Counsel for Respondent:	Mr Charles Clark
Solicitor for Respondent:	Ms Lauren Bishop, HBA Legal