Gary Purssell v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWCC 158

Compensation Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Gary Purssell v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWCC 158 PARTIES : Gary Purssell Commissioner of Police MATTER NUMBER(S) : 7436 of 1998 JUDGMENT OF: Geraghty J at 1 Entitlements & Liability :- major depressive illness CATCHWORDS: hurt on duty appeal against decision of the Commissioner LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 12/2/2001, 4/6/01, 5/6/01, 24/8/01, 29/8/01 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 08/29/2001

FOR APPLICANT: MR A Edwards instructed by Harris Wheeler LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR RESPONDENT: Mr M Daley instructed by Michael Holmes

JUDGMENT: 1. Gary Raymond Purssell had appealed against the decision of the Commissioner dated 11 December 2000, to the effect that the certified infirmity of major depressive illness (specified in a certificate of 17 November 2000) was not an illness which was caused by his being hurt on duty. 2. In fact, the STC Disputes Committee issued two certificates. On 3 June 1998 the committee determined that the incapacitating infirmity of Purssell was recurrent episodes of adjustment disorder in dependent personality. That certificate was re-considered on the application of Purssell, and a further certificate was issued on 17 November 2000, certifying an infirmity of major depressive illness. These matters are contained in Exhibit K and Exhibit C. 3. In the course of this prolonged hearing I have sat and watched a man's life pass before me in painful detail. All his personal and hidden problems, his failures, his moments of private weakness. It was a messy story. I heard of a tangle of marital problems, excessive binge-drinking from before 1998, of personal, inappropriate involvements, firstly with a fellow police officer, later with a volunteer in the Police Service. I heard of a tangle of stressors connected with his police duties. It was a story of a life imploding, and now I am required to determine why. More precisely, the simple question before me is what was the cause of the appelant's certified condition of major depressive illness as at June 1998. 4. On a wider perspective, on a larger canvas, in the background, I have heard rumours and rumblings of sordid happenings in the force and involving some of its members, of the police culture and its effect on one individual, of preferment of allegedly unworthy police officers. 5. The respondent conceded that the cause of illness should be determined as at June 1998, rather than as at November 2000, that is, when the second certificate was issued. Consequently there is no need to consider the question as to which date is the date at which to assess the cause of illness. An Over-view. 6. From the evidence as it unfolded, it would appear that Purssell began his adult life with a vulnerable personality, one which showed characteristics of narcissism and dependence. He was self-centred, easily wounded, in constant need of confirmation, pre-occupied with his own personal needs. His problems began with marital tensions in about 1988. He found himself in Narrandera where he, his wife and family separated. Before this time, he had experienced some alcohol related problems, mainly as a binge drinker. At this stage he complicated his already complicated life by a highly charged love affair with a fellow officer for whom he was commissioned to act as a mentor. She (Karen Wilson) was shot and killed by a fellow officer who was also under his supervision. At the time of the tragedy, Purssell was on leave, on holidays in the Hunter. When he returned to Narrandera, he was involved in an investigation and required by the Internal Affairs to answer questions in February 1989 (Exhibit A). He never recovered from this terrible experience of his friend's death and the ensueing investigation. 7. After that time, he began to experience dreams and nightmares. He continued a craving, a longing for this idealised woman. 8. In March 1999 he was transferred to the Newcastle area. In 1991 he was required to charge a Senior Detective Fabris who had been driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol and after the detective had been involved in an accident. He said that thereafter and because of this, he experienced some isolation and ostracism. He became a victim of the police culture of mateship. In May 1994 he sought treatment for stress from Dr Bullock (Exhibit D). 9. In late 1995 he viewed the film Schindler's List and was shocked to see the bloody slaughter of one of the actors. Thereafter he began experiencing flashbacks involving the death of Sharon Wilson and the circumstances surrounding her shooting. Then he also began to experience incidents of anger, of rage and potential violence at work, directed to the public. Even when he later came under treatment, episodes against the woman who was treating him. 10. In April 1996 the marriage again came under stress, and collapsed sometime later. In May 1996 he laid on information against his supervisor, Robert McDonald, who was a close personal friend and had even helped him move house when his marriage had collapsed. The allegations on which the information was based were made came from a new girlfriend, Karen, who was a volunteer police assistant. She provided information about herself and another female volunteer which then invited an Internal Affairs investigation. Purssell came under the care of Dr Peters in June 1996. From about this time, he was having more family problems. His wife, for example, was in a relationship with a new partner, and then another, and one of these was providing unreasonable, harsh discipline for his children. 11. In June 1997, an application for hurt on duty was refused. This application was based on the effects of the shooting of Karen Wilson. 12. From mid-1996 and throughout 1997, he continued to have family problems. He was involved in custody disputes and a property settlement. In January 1997 his relationship with Karen, the police volunteer, ended after some minor incident of violence. It is clear from the circumstances in which that relationship ended, that Purssell was still suffering episodes of anger and rage. 13. In October 1997, he filed an application for medical discharge. This application is Exhibit 4. In that same year, 1997, he commenced a new relationship which led to marriage, which in turn ended in October 1999. He ceased his employment with the police force in January 1998, the same month in which he lost custody of his children, though he was not discharged from the service until June of that same year. 14. The first certificate certifying recurrent episodes of adjustment disorder in dependent personality was issued on 5 June 1998. In early 2000, Purssell began a new relationship which I understand continues. A second certificate was issued in November 2000, and the decision of the Commissioner that he was not hurt on duty as a result of the major depressive illness is dated 11 December 2000 (Exhibit C). The Appellant's Submissions. 15. Mr Edwards, counsel for the appellant, conceded that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Zinc Corporation & another v Scarce, 12 NSWCCR 556, does apply to the death of Sharon Wilson and its effect on Purssell's condition. In Scarce the worker was a miner who heard of the death of two of his mates in a mine accident. The news devastated him. It was not clear when and where he had received the news, though it was likely he was not at work at the time. He returned to work below ground for some 15 months before he was assigned, at his request, to an above-ground job where he continued to work for another 8 years. He claimed compensation for a compensible injury, namely, an anxiety state caused by the news of his mates being killed in the mine where he was working. 16. The Court of Appeal found there was no evidence that the condition had arisen in the course of his employment. His condition had been caused by the receipt of news of his mate's death, and there was no evidence as to when or where the disclosure of that news had occurred. Therefore, no evidence of any physical or temporal link between the accident and the worker. The same is true in this case. Purssell was not on duty at the time he received the news of the death of his fellow police officer and friend. The Court of Appeal further found that Scarce's condition could not be said to have arisen out of his employment because it was not causally related to his employment. 17. Clarke JA pointed out that the expression arising out of employment in the definition of injury in s 6 of the Act, pointed to a causal relationship between the employment and the injury. The test of causation is whether the fact of being employed in a particular job caused, or to some material extent contributed to, the injury. The test to be applied is one of common sense. Clarke JA considered that the evidence in the Scarce application went no further than to demonstrate that the deaths in the mine in which the applicant worked made him frightened to return to work there. This did not mean that his work had contributed in any way to his anxiety condition. There was no causal connection. Mr Edwards (quite rightly) conceded that if this Court decides that Purssell's condition was caused solely by the death of his friend, Sharon Wilson, and by the consequences of that death, he must necessarily be found not to have been hurt on duty. 18. The appellant further submitted that the death of Karen Wilson had been a plank on which all his other problems were constructed. Mr Edwards relied heavily on the oral evidence of Dr Maguire, though, he said, many of the other doctors, and particularly Dr Darcy, Dr Lambert, Dr Chauncy and Dr Aguado, agreed that while the death of Karen Wilson was central, the other stressors were a contributing factor to the condition as at June 1998. 19. Mr Edwards also submitted that the record of interview had been a process in which, as a policeman, Purssell had been required to engage, and that it was one more appropriate to criminal proceedings. He had not been given any counselling by the police force after the death of his friend, or after the record-of-interview had been conducted. Mr Edwards asserted that the appellant's marriage problems, for example in May 1997, were really symptoms rather than causes of his condition. He conceded in submissions that there might be a problem about the histories which the appelant had given to the various doctors over the years, concentrating at one stage on the death of his friend, and more currently on more recent and work-related incidents. 20. The respondent submitted that the change in the histories given to the doctors had resulted from the appellant's learning of the refusal of the claim based on the death of Wilson. Mr Edwards would have me accept that the change was rather a result of his suffering major depression. He was at times wrongly identifying some elements of his history as important, and other elements, undisclosed elements, as of less importance. 21. In any event, the overall submission of the appellant was to the effect that the certified condition was a tragic combination of multiple incidents. He had experienced the death of his close friend in November 1998. This gave rise to symptoms of bereavement. He was subjected to an interview in February 1989 which gave rise to further problems of bereavement, but also to a sense that his close friend's reputation had been sullied. One incident built on another, creating more symptoms. There had been no space between incidents in which to resolve the problems. One problem occurred after another. One incident blocking the path to recovery, one incident building on another, reinforcing the pattern of symptoms, one feeding off the other, until finally the appelant would be certified unfit for police duties because of a major depression. Over the years he had had no chance to deal with one problem before the next one intruded. Such was the general tenor of the appellant's submissions The Respondent's Submission 22. The respondent made lengthy submissions which I do not propose to summarise in any detail. However, Mr Daley said that there were three critical considerations. The Court should first of all contrast and compare the work stressors as identified by the appellant with the personal stressors which he was experiencing at the same time. The stressors identified by Purssell which related to work was a gun incident in 1987; a knife incident in 1988; the 1991 charging of Detective Fabris and the ostracism which followed; and particularly the 1996 reporting of his supervisor and the ostracism and isolation which also followed. Whereas, on the other hand, the personal, non-work related stressors identified in evidence was the death of Karen Wilson and the police enquiry afterwards; the excessive alcohol consumption in the late 1980s and then periodic drinking thereafter; the continuing marital problems from 1987 or so resulting in a separation in April 1996; the custody disputes; and finally, the traits of a dependent narcissistic personality. 23. The second consideration was that the Court should compare and contrast the histories provided by Purssell before June 1997 (when his claim for hurt on duty as a result of the death of Wilson had been refused) and the histories provided to doctors after June 1997. And finally, the respondent submitted that the Court must decide in the circumstances, on the balance of probability, whether there was one cause of the appellant's condition, and all other matters were symptoms of this, or whether there was a combination of incidents, one problem after another, and the combination constituted the cause of the condition. 24. Mr Daley went on to submit that the appellant's histories have varied over a period of time, with significant differences. For example, at times he failed to mention his marital problems to the doctors who were supposedly treating him for his emotional condition. Mr Daley further submitted that some of the appellant's complaints did not have any factual basis and, in this regard, he relied upon the decision of Chief Judge McGrath in Townsend. He gave a few examples of this, including the complaint that there had been no support offered by the police service when the appellant had needed it, whereas he was provided at one stage with a Peer Support Officer. The Appellant's Evidence As To The Effect Of Incidents On His Emotional State 25. When Purssell was discharged from the Police Service in June 1998 he complained that he was suffering headaches, sleeplessness and that he had been alienated from the police force. His friends were distancing themselves; he had self-doubts about his performance and untrustworthiness as a police officer; he found it difficult to speak to other people; and he had had a breakdown of friendships. At the time, there was an ongoing investigation against Sergeant McDonald. He had broken down a number of times in the office and had had uncontrollable feelings of rage and anger. This was his condition as he described it at the time of his discharge. 26. In the course of his evidence before the Court, he identified a series of significant events in the course of his police service. The first of these was an event in October 1987 when he had been threatened by a firearm at Narrandera. A gun had been pointed at him, directly, from close distance, and he had to wrestle a loaded firearm from the offender who was swinging the gun side to side and pointing it at him. He said that after this event he had been concerned for his life, he had been upset, distressed, but had had no time off, and had received no counselling. 27. The second incident of which the appellant gave evidence occurred in November 1988 when a fellow officer, Snyder, when cleaning a weapon, by accident shot his friend Sharon Wilson and killed her. He had been her training officer, as well as the training officer of Snyder. At the time he had been involved in an intense affair with Wilson. When asked about the effect that her death had had on him, he said, in a very restrained manner, that he had been upset, he had experienced grief, he attended the funeral where he had met the family, but had had no time off, and no counselling. 28. The third incident identified by the appellant was the Internal Affairs investigation which took place in February 1989 at which, he said, an allegation had been made of a love triangle involving himself, Sharon Wilson and Constable Snyder. The relevant questions are questions 26 and 27 of the Record of Interview (Exhibit A). Purssell was asked Did you have anything but a working relationship with Constable Wilson? and to this question, instead of answering simply yes, he gave evidence, in a page-and-a-third of close-typed details, of their relationship. Question 27 asked Did you have a sexual relationship with Probationary Constable Snyder? to which he simply answered No. 29. Purssell said in evidence that he had broken down several times during the interview, that he had been shocked when asked about the love triangle allegation, that he felt (and has always felt thereafter) that the memory of his close friend had been desecrated by such a question. He also complained that he was never informed about the results of the inquiry, that there was never any finality to it. He added that he had had no counselling. 30. Then Purssell gave evidence as to his general condition before June 1991. In giving this evidence in Court, he began to weep. He appeared quite upset. He said that before June 1991 he thought he had been coping reasonably well, though he had been experiencing nightmares and a lack of sleep, and he had been more aggressive with a shorter fuse. He had had some blood pressure problems. He found it hard to cope with general duties. He felt like he had been holding his feelings in, that he was becoming more and more angry. The investigation into Wilson's death remained unresolved. He had not been told about anything and he was feeling that he could not trust the police force to support him. He said he did not know at that stage where to turn. 31. Purssell was in a supervisory position in Newcastle, even though he was only a 'senior constable'. There were some staff shortages, and therefore work pressures. He felt that he was being blamed for Sharon's death and he could not understand this. However, at this time he was still married and even purchased land as late as 1993. 32. Then in 1991, he charged Detective Fabris with a mid-range prescribed concentration of alcohol after Fabris had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in Newcastle. He gave evidence that Fabris had spoken to his colleagues upstairs, in the station, and that this then became quite distant towards him, refusing to speak with him. Fabris' boss had described him at one stage as a bastard. He said that the police culture had come into play, protecting their 'mates' and that he felt isolated and alienated. He felt that he was receiving no support from the patrol commander. He said he was stressed and that he began to seek a desk job. 33. From 1991 to 1996, the appellant gave evidence as to how he was feeling, that is for the period between the incident involving Detective Fabris and charging his friend, Robert McDonald. He said that eventually he began working in the Intelligence Office with computers. This was where he wanted to work, it would seem, in any event. He said that he wanted to hide for a while, out of the public gaze. He had had blood pressure problems. When he had collapsed on the railway station, he had been taken to John Hunter Hospital. 34. In 1994 he returned to general duties, on the beat in a smaller unit. He said that he was concerned at this stage that his fellow officers would not feel comfortable working with him. He felt suspicious. He was more and more aggressive with the public, and over-zealous in his policing technique. He was agitated at home, not treating his wife or their two teenage boys in a fatherly manner. He said that during this period he and his wife grew apart, that his shift work was causing tensions between them. He was having nightmares about the shooting of Wilson, he felt unsupported by his wife, fearful and frightened. 35. Then in May 1996 a further internal investigation commenced after he had reported on allegations against Robert McDonald. The information had been provided to him by a police volunteer, Karen, and, as a result, he had taken her to an interview at Carrington. Outside the Carrington Police Station he had begun to cry and break down. He came under the care of Dr Bullock and of Dr Roger Peters, whose reports I will come to. 36. After June 1996, in fact in January 1997, Purssell was admitted to the James Fletcher Hospital. He had been at a party with Karen Mascort, the volunteer. Her brother had been involved in an argument and, when Purssell had tried to break up the fight, he had become involved in it. He had picked Karen up and thrown her against the wall. The anger he described, he said, had been under the surface since 1988, since Sharon Wilson's death. 37. In cross-examination, Purssell described his last day at work, in January 1998. He said that the system had let him down. He felt that it was unjust. McDonald had been promoted to an acting inspector. He had discovered this when he was examining some over-time forms. He had been promoted, despite the charges of rape against him, charges which would not proceed because the person whom he was alleged to have raped had died of breast cancer. He said that in January 1998 he had stopped coming to work because he had been disenchanted. He had broken down at work and walked out the door. The Medical Evidence 38. In his report (at page 26) Dr Maguire (Exhibit 5) observed that it had been his experience over the years that the most valuable insights into possible causes of any psychological or emotional disorder would be found in the early treatment records and reports of general practitioners, psychologists and psychiatrists. He said that once litigation had commenced, and particularly after a hurt on duty claim had been rejected, subsequent histories provided to examiners and are recorded in reports are often contaminated, as the officer consciously, or unconsciously, begins to focus the history on events that might be considered more likely to lead to a successful outcome of his claim. That is the general observation on which the respondent rests its case. Mr Daley submitted that the Court must carefully consider histories provided to treating doctors before, and histories provided after June 1997. 39. In general, because of the way this claim has unfolded, because all alleged stressors occurred before 1997, it seems to me that the histories provided to treating doctors, and their opinions as to causation expressed before June 1997, are more persuasive than the histories given to medico-legal experts, their opinions as to causation, as well as the opinions as to causation of treating doctors proffered after June 1997. In that regard, I endorse the observations of Dr Maguire. 40. Dr Bullock's reports are Exhibit D, and his certificates, Exhibit 3. He provides an overview of his treatment of Purssell from May 1993 to May 1998. He said that the appellant had been a patient from September 1990. 41. On 27 May 1993, his patient had presented at the surgery, having collapsed the previous day whilst walking to a train station. He had developed left chest pain followed by hyper-ventilation, and he had found himself in the John Hunter Hospital. Subsequent consultations related to controlling his blood pressure problems. 42. On 12 May 1994, Purssell consulted Dr Bullock again, regarding extreme stress at work. He and his wife presented on the same day, both complaining of stress in their work situation. On this occasion, the appellant complained about promotional opportunities. He again attended Dr Bullock on 29 July 1994, for treatment of hyper-tension and the flu. Blood pressure was the subject of treatment in December 1994, March and May 1995. In June 1995 he presented twice with viral illness which was causing severe headaches, and again in October 1995 and January 1996, he presented for treatment of blood pressure, and on two other occasions before June 1996. 43. Dr Bullock was consulted again on 4 June 1996. Purssell was complaining that he was quite significantly depressed. He had been seen by Dr Roger Peters, a psychologist. Dr Bullock thought his depression was significant and warranted treatment. He returned on 11 June 1996 and reported that he was tolerating the medication well, that there were no side-effects. 44. On 4 July 1996, Purssell reported that his depression was much improved. He reported also that at the time he was going through divorce proceedings and a financial settlement, and that he felt better able to handle these matters. He was still off work at this stage. On 12 July 1996 he felt that he was still unable to return to his duties because of his work-related stress. On 4 August 1996 he reported that he was much improved. He returned in September and November 1996, for treatment for blood pressure. On 27 February 1997, he attended Dr Bullock, complaining of significant stress: He related the stress to the shooting and subsequent death of a girlfriend in an incident while at work several years previously. He complained of recent episodes of uncontrolled violence and felt that he was unable to safely continue his work as a police officer. 45. Dr Bullock records that Purssell was referred to Dr Aguado for treatment, that he was re-certified unfit in March until April 1987. 46. He informed Dr Bullock on 9 July 1997 that his claim for hurt on duty had been refused on the grounds that it was not work-related. He continued to see Dr Bullock through August and October 1997 and January 1998. Dr Bullock concluded his reports: I do feel however that he has suffered significantly following the shooting incident at work and I believe that his stress and depression emanates from this event. 47. Dr Bullock's report seems to provide a simple history of treatment and complaint, and a window ungarnished into the appellant's problem. The certificates he issued are dated July and October 1997, January, February and May 1998. They all say the same thing. The May 1998 seems to be the one most relevant to the date of certification by the Commissioner. It certified the appellant unfit for work from April to July 1998, diagnosed acute exacerbation of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and identified the cause of the injury as 1988 fatal shooting of colleague. Work was substantial contributing factor. 48. Dr Peters' series of reports are Exhibit E. He began treating Purssell in June 1996 after his reporting Sergeant Robert McDonald. Dr Peters recorded in his first report that Purssell presented in a highly distressed state. The first two counselling sessions were aimed at dealing with this problem. He told the doctor that he had been experiencing psychological difficulties for some time. The doctor recorded a brief over-view of the circumstances leading to the referral. That over-view contains an allegation that the first traumatic experience had been when he had contacted a high-risk AID-infected person in 1985. He described a settling-in period into the police force between 1985 to 1987. Purssell provided a general history that at Narrendera station he had experienced significant stress, being on 24 hour call-outs and dealing with the demands associated with a high population of indigenous people. He had felt at times that he was not coping there. He admitted to hazardous drinking, including binge-drinking. He reported that in 1988 his drinking was out of control, and that he had separated from his wife. He identified a significant traumatic incident involving an armed person, an incident in which his life and members of the public were at risk. He told Dr Peters that he had met Sharon, a police officer, and had developed a close intimate relationship with her. She had been killed in an accident. 49. The doctor stated: This I believe was a significant watershed in Gary's life, one that caused him to be badly affected and in my opinion is not fully recovered. 50. Significant disillusionment was the result of an Internal Affairs investigation. Dr Peters recorded details of additional stress caused when Purssell reported an officer on receipt of complaints of sexual harassment. In addition, in the three months prior to seeing Dr Peters, he had left his wife and entered into another relationship. 51. In summary Dr Peters concluded that the short history which he recorded was an over-view of Purssell's circumstances. He had recorded these in order to place some time-frame in relationship to his difficulties. He observed that his history seemed to involve a combination of psychological, familial, work and profoundly traumatic incidents. He said that the work stress and pressure had obviously been diminished by the time he had had off duty, and that, when he returned to work, Dr Peters thought, he would have a better attitude. He said that he observed Purssell was more satisfied in relation to the reporting his supervisor, believing that it had been appropriate and that he had had little choice in the matter. However, according to Dr Peters, there remained a significant level of unresolved grief and that I think underpins a good deal of his behaviour and his more general inability to cope. 52. Dr Peters administered a traumatic symptom inventory and a Millon multi-axial clinical inventory. He concluded from the traumatic symptoms inventory that several features were predominant in the appellant's psychological make up. Firstly, intrusive experiences which involved thoughts and distressing images of Sharon. Secondly, sexual concerns. The doctor said that the profile overall indicated a person who was experiencing the longer term effects of trauma. He thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. He said that there was an element of pathological grief and the symptomatology fitted the diagnostic criteria of post-traumatic stress disorder. He concluded that the patient was a secondary victim, that is, a person who is injured by becoming aware of the primary victim's injuries. 53. There is little doubt from the report of Dr Peters dated June 1996, that the shooting was the core issue in the appellant's condition. There were other problems, but the cause was the shooting and the insensitive treatment immediately afterwards. Though there might have been other stressors from time to time, both work-related and personal, Dr Peters thought in June 1996 that Purssell was coping with those stressors. It was the circumstances of Sharon's death which was the reason for his continuing problems. 54. In the report of 12 February 1997, Dr Peters states that the appellant's post-traumatic symptomatology had dogged him for years, since the death of Sharon, and that he continued to be dogged by depression of the clinical type. He agreed that Purssell was suffering significant pathology, including a major clinical depression. 55. Purssell saw Dr Peters again on 12 June 1997. This visit gave rise to a report of 13 June. On that day he presented in a much improved state compared to his condition when previously seen. He informed the doctor that his compensation or hurt on duty claim had been denied. 56. Dr Allan White's report seems to have impeded the appellant's recovery. Dr Peters observed: With respect, this case I thought was fairly straightforward. It is true of course the Gary has had other difficulties over the years, but then it is hard to imagine that any person could work in such a demanding occupation and not have both work and non-work related issues that cause distress. However, to seemingly write his psychological problems off or be dismissive of this core issue, would seem to me to miss the point and certainly fail to understand the complexity of post-traumatic syndromes. 57. In a background summary prepared in September 1997, Dr Peters observed that the breakdown sometime ago had been caused by his inability to rid himself of images, flashbacks, dreams, of the death, on-going depression, severe rage. He said: ... of significance and a complicating factor was the treatment that Purssell had received at the time of the tragedy. He had been accused by implication of a ménage à trois. 58. Such allegations had impacted on Purssell. He felt the relationship he had had with Wilson had been desecrated. He said that the fact that Purssell had developed post-traumatic stress disorder was not only likely, but perhaps somewhat predictable. He wrote that all the doctors seemed and to be in accord that Purssell had much which was left unresolved (emotionally, spiritually and psychologically) as a consequence of the tragic death of Wilson. 59. Dr Peters then addressed himself to the long and difficult report of Dr White who reviewed Purssell on 30 September 1999, and produced the report of 5 October. 60. Dr Peters also reviewed the reports of Dr Lambert, Dr Les Darcy, of Trish Chauncy and observed that there seemed to have been a consistent view that Purssell had first suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the death of his friend in 1988, and that it would be generally agreed that he was thereafter vulnerable to anxiety and depression both being exacerbated and aggravated by other stressors. He diagnosed a major depression, a generalised anxiety disorder and a post-traumatic stress disorder. He said that after he had reviewed the opinions of four mental health professionals who seemed to be in accord, he saw no reason to change his opinion offered several years ago, namely: ... that this is a specifically work-related condition which finds its aeteology in the tragic death of his friend, Sharon Wilson, in 1988. Since then other work-related issues no doubt have caused an exacerbation of that condition, including the development of a significant depressive disorder. 61. I should observe that this seems to be, not the opinion he had reached several years previously, but an opinion which he had more recently come to. 62. Purssell filed a claim (dated 12 July 1996) which annexed a statement dated 10 September 1996. The statement of 10 September clearly indicates that the appellant himself thought his injury was caused by Sharon's death. He described the relationship he had had as intense. He said he had been devastated by the tragic loss and the circumstances surrounding it, which, he said, would be an understatement in the extreme. He complained that no welfare service had offered any help. He said that an interview with Internal Affairs had alleged a love triangle which had left him with a bitter taste. The way he had been treated had disturbed him and affected his judgment. He said that as at September 1996, he had begun to experience vivid, intrusive thoughts of Sharon Wilson, both when he was awake and when asleep. He said that these involved dark and symbolic visions. He said that over the 12 months before September 1996, these intrusive thoughts had affected him, with increased aggressiveness at work and at home. He complained that at May 1996, he had become privy to a complaint of sexual abuse and harrassment of a female volunteer by a supervisor at Newcastle - this added complexity caused undue stress to my already out of control anxiety. 63. On the second day of the hearing (at p 16), Mr Daley asked Purssell: Q What I am suggesting to you is that by the time these circumstances arose in May 1996, it was your belief that your anxiety was already out of control. Would you agree with that. A Yes. That would relate to my feelings about being out on the street and losing control with members of the public. That would be the anxiety there. That's what I was alluding to there. Being more aggressive out on the street. 64. On 12 August 1996 (or sometime thereafter) Purssell was being treated by a psychologist, Linnios, whose clinical notes are Exhibit 9. In her note, she recorded that his sense of loss on the death of Sharon Wilson and the insensitivity of his wife in assisting him in resolving his problem, had led to such anger and fear of violence that she had to cease treatment in case he attacked her. He identified this fear. He complained that his and Sharon Wilson's reputation had been tarnished (or desecrated) by allegations of a love triangle. It would seem that this was the problem for which he was being de-sensitised by Linnios. 65. Exhibit 2 is a document entitled The Anger Within - The Dark Side. This self-analysis is dated January 1997 and was drawn up by Purssell. It identifies the visions which he was experiencing and had been experiencing about the death and circumstances of Karen Wilson's shooting. There is a heading The Dark Side under which he refers to a black basketball court which is deserted. He recorded that the police department in their wisdom conducted an I.A. investigation of an alleged love triangle between Sharon, me and Sheree, the policewoman who shot Sharon. He said he was confused, disbelieving, angry, raged and violent. He complained that the department had not offered help, but only unleashed this dark side which was consumed with the protection of innocence. 66. Purssell drew up a number of scenarios, two from work, and two from home, to highlight the dilemma which he was experiencing. He said he would list the scenarios in which he had been involved where the dark side had come out in protection of real or perceived innocence, and he lists those scenarios. The document concludes that the scenarios which he had identified could possibly be applied to a number of people not suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, but that the difference with himself was that prior to Sharon's death, he had handled very similar work scenarios in a controlled and professional manner, without resorting to excessive force or any reaction. He said that with domestic arguments, even with alcohol as a factor, he had never resorted to physical action. He preferred rather to sleep it off. He observed that, not only had he suffered from the tragedy of Sharon's death and the associated grief which I have overcome and accepted, but he was suffering as a result of the misguided and unfounded investigation by the police department which destroyed the innocence of his relationship.He said that this was where the problem he was experiencing lay. 67. It seems from this document of self-analysis that in January 1997, Purssell blamed his problem of violence, anger and confusion on the death of Sharon and the investigation thereafter. He said that Sharon had lost her innocence, and they had lost the sacredness of their relationship. Her memory seemed to have been cheapened by the investigation, though I must say that though the appellant broke down several times in the interview, only one question was asked about the alleged triangle, a delicate, direct question, Question 27, to which the answer was simply given No - though, of course, there was a clear implication. 68. The usual bulky report of Dr White is Exhibit 7. He concluded that Purssell was not suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, though he had suffered a genuine grief syndrome. Dr White often traces people's psychological problems to alcohol abuse. He does the same in this case, and adds the problems created by family violence and breakdown. Dr White was of the opinion that the illness was not work-related, and that in any event, there was no good evidence of a psychiatric disorder. (I should say in this regard that I am bound by the certificate). He said that the symptoms identified as at April 1997 were that the appellant was sleeping well, he had a good appetite, was in a satisfactory relationship with a person called Stephanie and that the treatment which he had received had produced results. 69. The clinical notes of Dr Aguado are Exhibit 8, his report, Exhibit F. It was in April 1997 that he saw Purssell, on referral from Dr Bullock. 70. In April 1997, Purssell complained of decreased sleep, loss of weight, anorexia, depressed mood and episodes of uncontrollable rage in his work. He dates his problems as starting from 1988 and after the death of a close friend, Sharon. 71. He told Dr Aguado that he had always been calm and restrained in his work prior to this incident. He described the feeling of being in control during one incident when a loaded gun had been held at him after an offender had just shot someone else. This seems in marked contrast to the history the appellant gave to the Court about the effect of that same incident on him. Well, of course, the appellant could still feel in control and afterwards suffer some stress. 72. Dr Aguado said that from his narration, the internal branch process seemed far more disturbing to Purssell than the death of his friend. He said the cause of the various presenting symptoms was the Internal Affairs investigation at a time when he needed the support of his colleagues. 73. Exhibit 4 is the application for discharge dated October 1997. It contains a number of reports, including a statement from Purssell which (curiously) is dated 6 November 1997. In this statement, he complained that the process had been a long and exhausting, and one which had been grossly mishandled by the Service. He said that his depression was deeply seated and affected his day to day functioning, that he had broken down several times at work. The rage/anger within him was very real and he had disclosed instances of physical attacks on members of the public while he had been performing duties as an operational officer. I struggle daily at keeping these symptoms in check just to function as a person. 74. In his application he asserted that he would be a real and uncontrollable threat to the physical well-being of the public if he were placed in a confrontational situation. From 1988, when I was grieving for the death of Sharon Wilson, I was reaching out for assistance. But, no, the Police Service attacks me with an insensitive and inappropriate I.A. interview. After bearing my soul, was there assistance even when I reported off sick with stress on 2 December 1989? - No. 75. He said that when he was transferred to Newcastle, the Service knew that he was suffering stress, but again there was no help. He said that he had suffered for eight years, trying to cope, because he was afraid of what the Service might do to him after its reaction the first time. He claimed that after his confusion, hurt and deep feelings for Sharon, he did not wish to pursue a hurt on duty stress claim for fear of causing unfounded innuendo against Sharon's memory. Hyper-tension, a collapse on the Newcastle railway station, aggressive tendencies, intrusive visions, nightmares, the unethical sexual behaviour of a supervisor whom he had reported, a marriage breakup, and a state of mental breakdown on 4 June 1996, had led to two months off work. He said that Police Service response was that he would receive no visit from a medical officer, welfare branch or any rehabilitation. He said that the crcumstances of Sharon's death had been traumatic for him, but the treatment he had been handed out by the Service had been unforgivable. 76. He provided some details of the tragic death of Sharon Wilson, and identified himself as a secondary victim. He said that he was still haunted and saddened by the loss, due to a stupid act of another police officer. He had participated in the funeral of Sharon Wilson. He said that her memory had been desecrated by the Internal Affairs investigation. He described Dr White as a hired gun . He wrote that he had received a letter from Sharon's mother, that he had wanted the persons handling his application to read carefully the letter written not long after her daughter's death. He said that this letter was private and of great comfort to him, and that the Police Service had intruded on his privacy and offended Sharon's heavenly spirit. He thought that the innocence of their love had been damaged forever. 77. At the back of the application (Exhibit 4), under the heading Grounds For Appeal, Purssell said he was unaware of why his claim had been rejected, and assumed that it was because of the comments of Sergeant Pemberton. He quoted Sergeant Pemberton: I have formed the view that simply because the relationship with Wilson was formed through having worked together with the Police Service, this should not in itself make the Police Service liable. 78. He said that his main contention was with the way his claim had been handled by the Service after the death. He complained that no welfare assistance had been offered, and that instead, a totally insensitive and inappropriate Internal Affairs interview had been conducted. He had been completely devastated, he said, by this and by how it had desecrated the fond memory he had of Sharon. He also spoke of the tension caused by reporting his supervising sergeant for alleged sexual harassment. 79. The reports of the consultant psychologist, Trish Chauncy are Exhibit G. The first dated 18 January 1988 and the second, 2 June 1988. They were separated by a letter since she begins her second report by stating that she was responding to a letter from the solicitors dated 14 May 1998. She observed that in her initial report she had concluded that after having interviewed and assessed Mr Purssell, he was suffering a post-traumatic stress disorder, and that this condition was related to the tragic death of his friend, Sharon Wilson. She then said: I take note of the points raised in your recent letter and am mindful of various incidents which appear unrelated to the death of Ms Wilson. These included an investigation of police accident when drink/driving was involved in June 1991; a collapse suffered by Mr Purssell on his way home from work on the railway station in June 1992, and Mr Purssell's involvement and investigation of Sergeant McDonald in May 1996. I am also mindful of the fact that Mr Purssell suffered periods of incapacity in June 1992, June 1996 and January 1997. 80. The first report placed the cause fairly and squarely on the death of Sharon Wilson and its sequelae. This conclusion was arrived at after taking a long history. Trish Chauncy concluded in January 1998 that Purssell had displayed a range of dysfunctional, emotional and behavioural symptoms which indicated that he was most likely suffering a post-traumatic stress disorder. She thought that the psychological symptomatology was directly attributable to his experience, as a senior constable with the New South Wales Police Service, in the events surrounding the horrific and tragic death of Sharon Wilson in 1998. She said that he had decompensated, especially round the time of the Internal Affairs inquiry surrounding the death of Miss Wilson. She said that it was difficult to determine which event had a causal relation with the current emotional state. My guess is that is the sum total of all stressful events since Miss Wilson's death. 81. She then identified all those stressful events in a further report. This report is strongly supportive opinion of the appellant's claim that it was an accumulation of all the events: I believe the sum total of the stress and anxiety suffered by Mr Purssell as a result of these incidents had a deleterious effect upon his ability to enact duties within his role as a police officer. 82. Dr Lambert's report is Exhibit H. He examined Purssell in March 1999 and diagnosed depression/anxiety with some features of post-traumatic stress disorder and some features of a dependent personality. He thought that the cause of the applicant's condition was multi-factorial, both personal and work before November 1988, the death of Sharon Wilson in November 1988, especially the circumstances surrounding the charging of Fabris and the consequential ostracism thereafter, and the investigation surrounding McDonald and the fear of ostracism thereafter. Added to this were the marital problems - all superimposed upon a dependent personality which made Purssell particularly vulnerable to rejection. 83. It seems to me that these later events were not highlighted in the treatment the appellant was receiving after the events had occurred, and that, while some of these events were mentioned by Dr Peters, this treating doctor also remarked that his patient was improving and coping. 84. Dr Darcy saw the appellant three times from July to August 1999. His report is Exhibit J. He diagnosed a post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression, again caused by multi-factorial circumstances, or a combination of events. He thought that the two disorders (depression and post-traumatic stress disorder) had contributed to the breakdown of his first marriage and to his subsequent relationships. 85. Dr Milton's report is Exhibit 6. He examined Purssell once, in August 1999, and I note that his report is based on the certification of the condition as at June 1998, namely, recurrent adjustment disorder. Dr Milton considered that the appellant's central problem was a dependent personality. He said that people with dependent personalities were likely to experience emotional problems. Accepting the adjustment disorder, which he thought was not really the appropriate diagnosis, he said the cause was the death of Sharon. The other events may have caused some stress, he thought, but not sufficient to cause a psychiatric condition. He disagreed with the diagnosis of the post-traumatic stress disorder. 86. Dr Maguire's report is Exhibit 5. He examined the appellant in April 2001 and gave oral evidence on 5 June. He concluded that Purssell was suffering a pathological grief reaction, not a post-traumatic stress disorder, though he thought there were some elements of that condition included in the symptomatology. He said that the Internal Affairs investigation had caused anger, but it had not caused the disorder which the appellant was suffering. He said that he thought Purssell had an adjustment disorder, with some depressed moods, and that this had changed into a major depression over the years. He thought that the appellant had strong narcissistic traits in his personality and that he was somewhat dependent. He considered that the depression which the appellant was suffering, was caused by the death of Sharon Wilson and that this condition had been, from time to time, temporally aggravated by other stressors. 87. He agreed that the events surrounding the investigation of McDonald in 1996 could have been a factor in the condition as at January 1998. He thought that it was probably a factor, based on the history, and that since he was already depressed, this could have added to his problem as at January 1998. He was asked about the condition as at June 1988, and replied that the response Purssell made to potential rejection of his mates, as a result of his reporting McDonald, should have dissipated by June 1998, because he was by then, away from the stressor. He thought that his reporting of McDonald may have been a substantial factor in his condition, as at January 1988, but that it became less and less and dissipated as he took distance from the event and from any rejection. He thought that the appellant's tendency to rapidly form personal, intimate relationships was an indication of his dependent personality. He concluded therefore that he would have had a strong response to the loss of a relationship that was very satisfactory to him. This did not indicate a personality disorder, but rather a way of responding to those tragic circumstances. 88. Dr Maguire was provided with a more detailed history of the appellant's emotional life, involving his marriage breakdown, a relationship with Karen, the custody disputes. He observed that he had not been advised of these events, that the appellant had denied any personal private stressors in his life. He had told him for example, that his marriage had ended without any trauma. He thought that these personal matters were major factors in his depression, and having been given this information, Dr Maguire thought that this presented a new picture of the overall condition. 89. Dr Maguire said in his oral evidence that in 1994, the death of Sharon had still been an underlying plank sitting there, ready to cause trouble, that the Wilson issue kept re-surfacing, probably at times of decompensation, for example, when the appellant had broken down at Carrington Police Station, at the time when he expected to be rejected because of his learned behaviour. He said Purssell was grieving because of an idealised recollection of Ms Wilson, because of the brevity of the relationship and, since there had been no fall from grace, he continued with the fantasy that the relationship was ideal and perfect. Conclusion 90. What does one make of all that? 91. I am called on to determine whether the appellant was hurt on duty or in other words, whether the stressors experienced in the workplace were causative, or contributed in a real way to the certified condition as at June 1998. This is a simple question of fact, the answer to which is founded on common sense. The question is: what caused Purssell's condition as at June 1998? Was it the death of Sharon Wilson and the consequential investigation, or was it a combination of all the events in synergy? It seems to me clear that the answer is, that the tragic, unexpected death of his close intimate friend and his involvement in a routine investigation of the circumstances of her death, was the cause of his condition. 92. The other stressors, after November 1988, probably caused some temporary aggravation of Purssell's depression, but none of them, separately or together, made a substantial contribution to his condition. Each of them was dealt with satisfactorily. 93. The continuing established major depression as at June 1998 was the result of the tragic death of his friend after such a short period of intense intimacy, and then of his exaggerated interpretation of quite ordinary questions posed by the Internal Affairs officers during a routine investigation into the death. This tragic scenario in late 1988 and early 1989, was superimposed on a personality which was, and remains, dependent and probably narcissistic. 94. I uphold the decision of the Commissioner. Mr A Edwards instructed by Harris Wheeler (Sols) appeared for the applicant Mr. M Daley .instructed by Michael Holmes (Sols) appeared for the respondent