12 Oct State of New South Wales v Briggs [2016] NSWCA 344 (Briggs)
The Respondent in Briggs was a former NSW police officer who suffered a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) injury caused by his exposure to traumatic events in the course of his career as a police officer. The primary judge found that the NSW Police Force breached its duty of care to avoid exposing its officers to the foreseeable risk of psychological injury. The State of New South Wales, vicariously liable for negligence of the NSW Police Force, successfully appealed.
In Briggs, the Court of Appeal discussed the inevitability that police officers will be exposed to the risk of psychiatric injury in the course of their duty and held that a failure to debrief officers following traumatic incidents was insufficient to establish breach of duty of care. The court held that breach must be assessed ‘prospectively’ by reference to a ‘postulated system’ which could be applied ‘to all comparable officers (in this case, that probably amounts to all general duties police officers).’
The effect of Briggs is to require claimants in these matters to specify a ‘system of work which, if it had been implemented and maintained, across the NSW Police Force as a whole, would have been a reasonable response to the foreseeable risk of psychological injury’. The suggestion is, of course, that the official policies and practices of NSW Police are adequate in this regard.
The decision in Briggs presents new and difficult challenges for plaintiffs in the conduct of these PTSD claims.
Postscript: On 12 May 2017, the High Court of Australia granted Mr Briggs special leave to appeal. For plaintiff lawyers in this area of practice, the appeal was to be a welcome opportunity for clarification of relevant legal principles. That opportunity was lost when the matter settled out of court in the week prior to the appeal.