By Gaby Grammeno Contributor



For seven years after joining the police force in 2002, the officer was exposed to many distressing events. After starting work with the Terrorism Investigation Squad, he injured his lower back when arresting a suspect in 2012.

This resulted in time off work, surgery and ongoing treatment while on restricted duties.

In 2014, by then a Detective Sergeant, he began working with the Professional Standards Command and was taking part in a pain management program aimed at returning him to unrestricted duties.

While his relationship with the Detective Inspector who was his supervisor was initially very good, it deteriorated after a speed camera caught a police vehicle speeding, and there was uncertainty about who had been driving at the time.

His supervisor thought it was probably the officer on his way to a medical appointment and told him he should no longer see doctors in work time or use a police vehicle to do so.

The officer objected to this restriction as his appointments were with specialists who couldn’t see him on weekends, which effectively stopped him seeing doctors, and he knew of no other officer in the command who’d had his flexible roster removed. This made him feel he was a ‘captive’ of the DI.

Moreover, the DI adopted a more formal, distant demeanour, dropping greetings and chat, and using email rather than verbal communications. He told him he had an issue with his still being on restricted duties and that he might be removed from the command, which left the officer feeling anxious and confused.

This led to a meeting with the Superintendent, and another with many staff in which the DI said the officer would no longer take on any cases and would be an assistant to the Detective Senior Constables, unofficially demoting him by requiring him to report to another Detective Sergeant instead of to the DI.

Having been stripped of his authority, the officer felt ‘belittled, embarrassed, anxious, really stressed and hopeless … punished, in trouble and not trusted’.

He was put on restricted hours to enable him to attend medical appointments, but the DI would email him on his days off asking which doctor he’d seen, and the doctor’s phone number. The officer found this unnecessarily intrusive and his anxiety ‘went through the roof’, with disturbed sleep, nightmares and constantly ‘reliving work stuff’ in his head.

He decided to seek alternative work and eventually found an executive management position with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) while on unpaid leave from the police force. He worked with ACIC from November 2016 and found the work manageable, but he was still extremely anxious all the time.

In late 2018 his psychiatrist sought to arrange electroconvulsive therapy for him. When news of this, plus other evidence of the extent of his psychiatric problems, reached his supervisor at ACIC, he realised that if this and his suicidal thoughts were documented, he would never get another security clearance anywhere. This led him to resign from ACIC rather than run that risk.

Faced with feelings of profound hopelessness and worried that with no employment options he could not provide for his family and meet his responsibilities, the former officer reached a state where he struggled to leave his bedroom, let alone the house, was sedated most of the time, slept in three-hour blocks and had difficulty being around people or talking with anyone, even his children.

The policeman sued the State of New South Wales for negligence, and the case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

 

In court

The State of NSW accepted that it owed the policemen a duty of care as he was in a position analogous to that of an employee, but denied any breach of its duty, or alternatively, any causal connection between a breach and the psychiatric injury.

During cross-examination, it was put to the former police officer that he was exaggerating the degree of his anxiety and that it was not realistic of him to claim his psychological problems had derailed his expected career as a local councillor or mayor.

The defence also argued that his emotional issues from 2013 onwards were a byproduct of frustration and stress associated with his back problems, and that if he’d had psychological issues, he hadn’t adequately given notice of them.

The parties took opposing positions regarding what ought to be made of the many, arguably inconsistent, medical certificates issued over the years, but the employer accepted that the medical evidence indicated the former officer was totally unfit for all forms of employment. 

However, it contended that the DI’s actions in requiring the officer to attend medical appointments outside work hours and reassigning his workload while he was on restricted duties were reasonable management actions and did not constitute bullying and harassment.

The former officer said that these actions should not be seen as stand-alone stressors but as part of a bigger picture of the DI’s course of conduct, detailing 14 instances fitting the pattern of bullying.

Judge John Catsanos SC said the former officer impressed him as a genuine and straightforward witness and took the view that he did his best to answer questions honestly despite some confusion and inconsistencies, and though he was struggling with his emotions at times.

He was satisfied the officer suffered a recognised psychiatric illness, namely the significant exacerbation of an existing depressive condition, and that it was caused by the conduct of the Detective Inspector. The bullying and harassment by his supervisor had significantly exacerbated his PTSD and depressive condition and made a material contribution to his ongoing major depressive disorder and resultant incapacity.

Judge Catsanos found the employer was vicariously liable for the DI’s conduct and had breached its duty of care.

 

Damages

The judge assessed the damages payable to the officer in the context of other physical and psychiatric factors affecting his capacity, with a discount to take account of unrelated causes of incapacity, the fact that he retains rights to weekly compensation payments (of indeterminate duration) for his ongoing back problems, and the likelihood that he would not have been able to continue working until the normal retiring age.

The officer had been receiving weekly compensation payments for his back problems since he ceased working in 2018, so damages awarded by the court needed to avoid double compensation. It was agreed that the officer did not have any obligation to repay compensation payments for his back injury, as those payments were for a different injury, not the psychiatric injury for which he was entitled to damages.

For these reasons, Judge Catsanos applied a discount of 25% for past loss and 65% for future loss, awarding the officer $953,244 in damages.

 

What it means for employers

Deteriorating interpersonal relationships can be the root cause of significant losses for employers in terms of productivity, effectiveness, organisational cohesion and the bottom line as well. Detecting toxic conduct may not be straightforward, especially if it occurs in ways not evident to others and if stressed individuals try to conceal situations that might jeopardise their careers.

 

Read the judgment

George v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWDC 292