(c) No difference can be drawn between police officers working in perceived high risk areas because other officers can just as easily experience the death of a colleague in action, child murders, multiple fatalities and other serious incidents which may have an impact on them and there was no system in place within the Police Department to protect those persons in general, or the plaintiff in particular, apart from advertising services available to them (T-662-663). I have noted, in the section in which I have analysed all of the advertisements made available to me for the purpose of this trial, that apart from a brief period in the early 1990s, when there were some advertisements inserted for a limited number of police officers to attend such courses, advertising of stress courses for members of the Police Service generally was a rare event. Indeed, Inspector Lette conceded that it was her view, a view shared by her colleagues, that not enough was being done to reduce the incidence of injury by stress in the Police Service (T-666.36-44). This is despite the insightful comments by the Court of Appeal in State of New South Wales v Seedsman which put the Police Service on notice that it should develop proactive strategies to prevent or mitigate the impact of stress upon employees, as opposed to having a reactive approach (T-659.39-51).
(d) In particular, in relation to the murder of Ms X, Inspector Lette conceded that a police officer who is obliged to discharge responsibilities to family of a murdered girl could be placed in psychological conflict if there were delays or obstructions of the investigation, including a possible mishandling of the investigation, and that persons providing such advice should have some training in going about their duties so they did not become too close to the victims and have their objectivity impaired (T-670).
(e) Evidence concerning the plaintiff's attendance at a horrific accident involving the death of a 10 year old child when in the company of his commander and the commander having given evidence that he noted the plaintiff was reactive to an extent which surprised him given his knowledge of the plaintiff. Inspector Lette agreed she would expect the supervisor would make an inquiry at least on such an occasion (T-670).
(f) I was supplied with a copy of the transcript of the evidence of Inspector Lette in the proceedings of Bernasconi v The State of New South Wales . Inspector Lette described in cross-examination the Psychology Section's involvement in the peer support program (7 May 2004 at page 6). In particular, she gave evidence that in her journeys throughout country New South Wales (in particular in that case the south-west region) she tried to maintain contact with the local peer support officers and be part of locally based programs. There is no evidence before me in this case that any such visit was ever made to the plaintiff by any member of the Psychology Unit, although he was the peer support officer for the region. I note also that Inspector Lette conceded it was impossible for the Psychology Unit to offer a statewide service with an office in Surry Hills (Transcript 7/5/04, page7) and that there was out sourcing by the provision of funds to enable a member to see a private practitioner. However, none of the publications which have been tendered in these proceedings refer to the availability of any such service, so the plaintiff was not on notice that if he had needed counselling he could have attended a local counsellor at the expense of the Police Service. Indeed, it was the evidence of Inspector Lette that between 1994 and 1999 the activities of the Psychology Section in travelling through the country side became less frequent because the money that would have been used to fund things like travelling was then diverted to pay public providers (7/5/04 T8).