Herald Sun, October 15, 2025.

“In a move that has sent shockwaves through the Force, lawyers have successfully argued against any State liability because police officers are sworn officers, not employees.

The argument has been upheld in a number of recent decisions in the County Court that have prompted calls for the Allan government to urgently reform existing legislation that has become a barrier to claims by psychologically injured officers.”

In knocking out the claim, the County Court held that there was no basis for the imposition of a duty of care in favour of the officer.”

 Resulting from this legal decision, the indemnity of the State from liability to compensate police injured on duty or who later suffer from PTSI is deplorable. The issue of vicarious liability was also discussed, but faced the same fate for the Police.

“The issue of vicarious liability being owed to injured officers has drawn comparisons by the court to a recent High Court decision, known as Bird v DP, that held that institutions could not be held liable for sexual abuse if an offending priest or member of an institution was not in an employment relationship.”- HS

All of these legal manoeuvres to avoid liability by the government have not been happening behind closed doors, or in a vacuum, so the Government must have been aware of what was being foisted on the Police, and, for that matter, every other sworn person employed or otherwise in the State who are not covered by specific legislation.

Which brings us straight to the Premier, who surely would have been briefed on the risks of these legal findings posed.

Having considered the risk, I wonder if the Premier will be bothered to walk outside and have a friendly chat with her own personal security detail.

The conversation might be along the lines of;

“Hi, guys. You may have read about the court’s finding that you are not covered, should you take a bullet for me? The mental anguish is not covered, but rest assured, we will do something about it at some time.”

“You can at least take heart that should the unthinkable happen and you make the ultimate sacrifice, I will very much appreciate it, and your family has your super, and we promise to leave that alone (at this stage), apart from taxes”.

The State does not owe you a duty of care, but I care; No, I mean I really, really, really do care, believe me, now back to work”.

Equally inane in this legal debacle is that the Judiciary also relies on the police for their safety. Although for obvious security reasons it is not public knowledge, there is no doubt that in certain high-risk proceedings, the jurists are provided with close personal security. We wonder how those Police feel now.

It was also reported in the same article that;

“Australian Lawyers Alliance Victorian President, Susan Accary, on Wednesday called for urgent reforms”.

“Recent court decisions that have allowed Victoria Police to avoid responsibility for injuries to police officers do not reflect the general understanding of the employment relationship between the police force and its officers,” she said”.

“Police officers are employed by the state and are engaged in critical, dangerous and sometimes, traumatic, work.”

“It is unfortunate that the law as it currently stands allows the state to avoid their obligations to their officers.

“Police officers, who often work in a high-risk environment for the benefit of the community, should be able to rely on the state to provide them with the support they need if they are injured at work.”

The risk of more police industrial action is real, as no police member would want to or should be forced to go to work without protection, so it is somewhat interesting that the Police Association is not pursuing a mass walkout of Police.

It is ironic that the last Police strike in 1923 occurred just before the Spring Racing Carnival. The Victoria Police force at the time was understaffed, poorly paid compared to other State police forces, and lacked an industry pension.  Although the Police now have Superannuation, the rest of the similarities have a certain Déjà Vu ring.

To follow the illogical legal argument proffered in the courts, the relationship between any sworn person and their employer is a relationship without a ‘duty of care’.

The list of people who are now exposed is extensive, but not limited to,

Clergy, Municipal Office bearers (Mayors), all politicians, the Governor, all Judges and other jurists, even your local scout master, in fact, anybody that takes an oath as part of their employment, paid or otherwise, would seem to immediately exclude their employer from any ‘duty of care’.

If this logic is followed, the employee ceases to be an employee in the usual sense of the word, making it equally outrageous.

This could only happen in Victoria.