Statement of Principles concerning explosive blast injury (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 26 of 2020)

The instrument is built around a short set of core concepts and defined terms that determine its scope and operation. Key defined terms are located in Schedule 1 , for example, “explosive blast injury” (s 7(2); Schedule 1), “terminal event” (Schedule 1), “VEA” and “MRCA” (Schedule 1), and the precise notion of “relevant service” (Schedule 1). Relevant service is defined in three disjunctive limbs: eligible war service (other than operational service) under the VEA; defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA; or peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1).

Causation standard: the instrument is expressed as a Statement of Principles “(Balance of Probabilities)” in its title and the Repatriation Medical Authority records that, on the sound medical‑scientific evidence available, it is of the view that it is more probable than not that explosive blast injury and death from explosive blast injury can be related to relevant service (s 8). That establishes the probabilistic baseline: decision makers are to ask whether connection to service can be made on the balance of probabilities in the particular case by reference to the factors the instrument sets out.

The two statutory factors (s 9) are conceptually distinct. The first factor is direct exposure to an explosive blast. The second factor is an inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for explosive blast injury. Section 10 conditions the second factor: it is available only where the explosive blast injury was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, relevant service, and the factor is limited to situations of material contribution to, or aggravation of, an existing explosive blast injury (s 10(2)). The instrument therefore recognises two routes to a finding that a condition is connected to service: (1) temporal and causal linkage through exposure during service; or (2) contribution or aggravation caused by service‑related inability to obtain clinical management, but only in a circumscribed set of temporal circumstances.

Cross‑linking: section 11 provides that where a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease already the subject of another Statement of Principles, the factors in that other Statement apply in accordance with its terms as in force from time to time. That mechanism allows the Repatriation Medical Authority’s catalogue of Statements of Principles to be used in combination when a factor implicitly requires satisfaction of another SoP.

Structural limits: the instrument is explicitly confined to causation for the purposes of certain statutory claims (s 5), it does not define operational thresholds for evidentiary proof beyond the balance of probabilities, and it leaves precise clinical interpretation of terms like “exposed to an explosive blast” and “appropriate clinical management” to the decision‑maker’s medical assessment and any relevant supporting SoPs.

Directly affected persons are claimants whose claims fall within section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA, that is, veterans and members of the Forces seeking a determination that explosive blast injury or death from it is connected with relevant service (s 5). The Schedule’s definition of “relevant service” narrows the class of member‑service relationships to eligible war service (other than operational service), defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA, and peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1). Those exclusions matter because they take certain categories of service outside the SoP’s reach.

Other directly affected actors include decision makers within the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or decision bodies applying the VEA and MRCA, who will apply this SoP as part of the causation assessment. The Repatriation Medical Authority is the instrument’s authorising and declaratory body; it states the medical‑scientific basis for the SoP in s 8. Medical practitioners and expert witnesses who provide opinions on causation or on the existence of the required factors will be asked to address the exact formulations used in this instrument (for example, whether the person was “exposed to an explosive blast”, or whether there was an “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management”) because those are the legal predicates the decision maker must determine (s 9).

Indirectly affected groups include affected family members in death cases where a terminal event contributed to by an explosive blast injury is alleged (s 7(3); Schedule 1). Administrators who manage records of service exposure, incident reports, treatment availability and medical records will be engaged because those documents are the likely materials used to establish factors. The repeal of the prior Statement of Principles concerning physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 49 of 2012 (s 4) means any claimant or decision maker who previously relied on that 2012 instrument must now work with the 2020 SoP.

Finally, legal advisers, compensation consultants and advocates who prepare or contest claims under the VEA or MRCA will need to align evidence and arguments to the two factors and the relationship to relevant service specified here, and to the cross‑reference mechanism in s 11 where the factor points to another SoP.

This instrument is a declaratory instrument that sets legal predicates for decision makers and claimants; it does not itself create enforcement powers, monetary entitlements, or administrative procedures. The operative duties and rights arise as follows.

Duty to satisfy causation factors: for an explosive blast injury or death from explosive blast injury to be regarded, on the balance of probabilities, as connected with a person’s relevant service, at least one of the factors in s 9 must exist and be related to the relevant service rendered by the person (s 9; s 10(1)). Practically, that places a burden on the claimant to adduce evidence showing either exposure to an explosive blast or inability to obtain appropriate clinical management, and to show the relevant relationship to service.

Limitations on the treatment factor: subsection 9(2) (inability to obtain appropriate clinical management) is subject to the limitation in s 10(2). It applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, an explosive blast injury where that injury was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, the person’s relevant service. This creates a narrower right to succeed via the treatment‑access route and a corresponding obligation for claimants relying on that route to establish the temporality and non‑arising‑out‑of‑service element.

RMA’s declaratory function: under s 3 the instrument is made under s 196B(3) of the VEA, which is the statutory power for the Repatriation Medical Authority to determine Statements of Principles. Section 8 records the RMA’s view, based on available medical‑scientific evidence, that it is more probable than not that explosive blast injury and death from it can be related to relevant service. That view is the evidentiary foundation the RMA provides to decision makers; the RMA’s role is to set the medical‑scientific baseline for causation, not to determine individual claims.

Cross‑statement interaction: if a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease that is already the subject of another SoP, then the factors in that other SoP apply in accordance with its terms as in force from time to time (s 11). That creates a duty on assessors to consult and apply the terms of other Statements when a factor invokes them.

No penal sanctions in the instrument: the text does not impose criminal or civil penalties, nor does it specify procedural rights of review or appeal. Rights of review or appeal, and entitlement outcomes, fall to be determined under the VEA or the MRCA and their procedures, not by this Statement itself. The instrument therefore operates as a focused legal‑medical input to those broader statutory schemes and the associated decision processes.

The instrument contains no express penalty or enforcement provisions. It is a Statement of Principles intended to be used within the statutory decision framework of the VEA and the MRCA for the purpose of assessing causation on the balance of probabilities (s 5, s 8). Its legal effect is to supply the causation criteria that apply to relevant claims; it does not itself create offences, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms.

Enforcement in the sense of application occurs when decision makers under the VEA or MRCA apply the factors and relationship requirements set out in this instrument to particular claims. The instrument prescribes what must be proved for a connection to service to be accepted , namely one of the factors in s 9 that is related to relevant service (s 9; s 10(1)) , but it does not prescribe the procedural steps, evidentiary thresholds beyond balance of probabilities, or adjudicative processes employed by decision makers. Those adjudicative and review mechanisms are provided for in the VEA and MRCA themselves, not in this instrument.

Because there are no penalties or enforcement measures in the instrument, any consequences of non‑compliance with the SoP are indirect and procedural. If a claimant cannot establish one of the required factors and appropriate relationship to relevant service on the balance of probabilities, a claim for connection to service for explosive blast injury or death from it will not succeed under the applicable benefit laws. Conversely, if a decision maker accepts that the factors are satisfied, entitlement questions under the VEA or MRCA will then proceed according to those statutes. The instrument does, by operation, affect the outcome of claims but not through sanctions.

Readers should note the instrument’s silence on monitoring, auditing or compliance enforcement: it does not create administrative obligations on third parties, reportable duties on clinicians, or oversight mechanisms. Any compliance or enforcement ecosystem around application of the SoP will derive from the administrative processes established under the VEA and MRCA and the agencies that implement them.

The instrument is made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (s 3), and it expressly applies to claims to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 applies (s 5). This places the Statement of Principles functionally inside the decision frameworks created by those statutes: it provides the RMA’s medical‑scientific determinations about causation that decision makers under the VEA and MRCA must use when considering whether explosive blast injury or related death is connected with relevant service.

The Schedule 1 definitions tie the instrument back to the VEA and MRCA in substantive scope: “relevant service” is defined by reference to categories under the VEA and MRCA (Schedule 1). The Schedule’s exclusions , for example eligible war service other than operational service, defence service other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service, and peacetime service under the MRCA , establish cross‑statutory boundaries that may create divergence between the scope of this SoP and other statutory instruments or policies.

Section 11 creates an explicit mechanism for cross‑SoP operation: if a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease that another Statement of Principles covers, the factors in that other Statement apply “in accordance with the terms of that Statement as in force from time to time” (s 11). That produces a layered interaction across the RMA’s suite of Statements. Where one factor invokes another Statement, decision makers must consult and apply those other Statements as they stand. This can lead to combined legal tests where, for example, proving exposure to a blast might also require meeting the factors of an SoP that addresses a specific injury modality referenced by the factor.

The instrument also repeals the prior Statement of Principles concerning physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 49 of 2012 (s 4). That repeal means that any legal arguments or evidence prepared on the basis of the 2012 instrument must be re‑calibrated to the 2020 SoP in relevant decisions and appeals. It is the instrument itself, and not the VEA or MRCA, that effects the repeal; the effect of the repeal will be realised in the application of the current SoP in decision processes governed by the VEA and MRCA.

The SoP is silent on interaction with general common law tort, workers’ compensation schemes, or non‑defence administrative compensation regimes. Its practical legal interaction is with statutory determinations under the VEA and MRCA and with other RMA Statements of Principles via s 11.

The instrument identifies itself as Statement of Principles concerning explosive blast injury (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 26 of 2020) and is dated 24 April 2020, with commencement on 25 May 2020 (s 1; s 2; instrument metadata). The text records one explicit historical change to the RMA’s prior Statements: the repeal of the Statement of Principles concerning physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 49 of 2012 (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2012L01790) made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (s 4). That repeal is the only amendment or replacement action registered in the instrument itself.

No further amendments, transitional provisions, saving clauses, or staged commencement clauses appear in the instrument. The Schedule provides definitional content current as of the instrument’s making; no prior versions of the Schedule are included. The instrument’s s 11 reference to other Statements of Principles being applicable “as in force from time to time” indicates that the RMA intends that factors in other SoPs may change and those changes will be effective in combination with this SoP, but the instrument does not itself record any amendments to other SoPs.

This instrument therefore represents a discrete 2020 replacement of a 2012 Statement in respect of related subject matter. The instrument contains no express sunset, review or scheduled amendment provision, nor does it provide any transitional detail for claims initiated under the prior 2012 Statement of Principles. The repeal in s 4 is absolute in form; consequential administrative practice about claims in progress will be governed by the VEA/MRCA decision‑making rules and agency practice, not by this instrument.

The instrument does not record any litigation history. It is a statutory Statement of Principles prepared by the Repatriation Medical Authority and the text includes no references to court or tribunal decisions, no judicial guidance, and no examples of administrative determinations that interpret its terms. The instrument itself is therefore silent on litigation outcomes, precedent or the way courts and tribunals have applied similar Statements of Principles.

Because the instrument is intended to be applied in decisions under the VEA and the MRCA, litigation about claims that depend on this SoP could arise in administrative review or judicial review processes under those Acts. However, any such litigation is not described in this Statement and must be located in external sources. The Schedule and provisions of the instrument do not contain any notes about earlier case law or decisions that shaped this SoP; the document records only the RMA’s view about the medical‑scientific evidence (s 8).

Practitioners should therefore treat the instrument as a primary source for causation criteria and expect to consult the VEA, the MRCA, and any tribunal or court decisions that have since interpreted or applied this Statement in individual claims for a litigation history. The absence of litigation references in the instrument means that, as drafted, it is a declaratory medical instrument rather than a document annotated with litigated interpretations.

The instrument’s brevity and legal framing create several practical pitfalls for claimants, decision makers and advisers. These are concrete operational risks and ambiguities that arise from the text itself.

Narrow categories of “relevant service”: the Schedule’s definition of relevant service excludes certain categories of VEA service and MRCA service by express wording. “Eligible war service (other than operational service)” and “defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service)” are listed (Schedule 1). That means some service types commonly thought of as “service” for other purposes are outside the SoP’s scope. Practitioners must not assume that all service is “relevant service” for this SoP.

Two discrete, potentially narrow causation pathways: the SoP requires at least one of two factors in s 9. The first factor, “being exposed to an explosive blast”, is a factual proposition that decision makers will have to establish. The instrument does not define “exposed” further, or set thresholds for intensity, proximity, or documented incident criteria. That absence leaves room for contested factual interpretation. The second factor, “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for explosive blast injury”, is constrained by s 10(2) so that it applies only to injuries suffered or contracted before or during, but not arising out of, relevant service when contribution or aggravation is alleged. The limited temporal and causal scope of s 10(2) can be surprising: inability to obtain treatment will not be available as a causal route for injuries that “arise out of” service.

No express definition of “appropriate clinical management”: the Schedule is silent on what constitutes “appropriate clinical management”. The lack of an operational definition means that what is “appropriate” will be clinically assessed and potentially litigated, which creates evidentiary and interpretative burdens for claimants and experts.

Death linkage via terminal events: s 7(3) brings into scope deaths where a terminal event or condition was contributed to by the explosive blast injury. Schedule 1 lists examples of terminal events such as pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure and cessation of brain function. Practitioners should not assume only immediate fatal injuries count; the chain of causation can extend to terminal events. However, the required showing remains contribution to those terminal events on the balance of probabilities.

Cross‑SoP complexity: s 11 permits factors to import other Statements of Principles “as in force from time to time.” That means a factor referring to another injury or disease will require assessing and applying another SoP and its present terms. The practical implication is potentially nested causation tests and the need to track amendments in other SoPs over time.

Repeal of prior SoP: the repeal of the 2012 munitions discharge SoP (s 4) may invalidate prior reliance points or expert opinions framed solely by the earlier instrument. Practitioners must check whether older evidence needs reworking to fit the 2020 SoP.

Absence of procedural detail: this instrument sets causation factors but supplies no guidance on evidentiary process, the form of medical opinion required, or transitional treatment of claims. Those procedural dimensions are determined by the VEA and MRCA and administrative practice, not by this document.

To obtain a favourable causation finding under this Statement of Principles a claimant must secure a decision that, on the balance of probabilities, at least one of the factors in s 9 applies and that the factor is related to the person’s relevant service (s 9; s 10(1)). The practical compliance steps flow from those legal predicates.

1. Ascertain whether the claim falls within the instrument’s application. Confirm that the claim is one to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies (s 5), and that the person’s service meets the Schedule 1 definition of relevant service. If the service falls within an excluded limb in Schedule 1, the SoP will not apply.

2. Determine which factor is being relied upon. The causation options are (a) exposure to an explosive blast (s 9(1)), or (b) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for explosive blast injury (s 9(2)). The evidence strategy should be tailored to one or both of these routes.

3. For exposure to an explosive blast (s 9(1)): assemble contemporaneous and retrospective materials that show the person was exposed to an explosive blast during the period of relevant service. That will typically include service records, incident reports, witness statements, unit logs, incident mapping and medical records proximate to the event. Medical opinion should link the recorded exposure to tissue, organ or bone damage consistent with the SoP’s definition of “explosive blast injury” (s 7(2)). The required legal standard is balance of probabilities; the assessor must be persuaded that exposure occurred and caused the damage, not that causation is merely possible.

4. For inability to obtain appropriate clinical management (s 9(2) read with s 10(2)): confirm that the explosive blast injury was suffered or contracted before or during relevant service, and that it did not arise out of the relevant service (s 10(2)). Then document the nature of the inability to obtain treatment during the relevant service period and show how that inability materially contributed to or aggravated the explosive blast injury. Evidence may include medical records demonstrating gaps in treatment, correspondence about access issues, facility or staffing records, and medical opinion on the expected course of the injury had appropriate clinical management been available. The legal threshold requires material contribution or aggravation on the balance of probabilities.

5. When the factor refers to another injury or disease: check s 11. If the factor invokes an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles, identify the current text and factors of that other SoP and ensure the evidence and expert opinion address those factors “as in force from time to time”. This may require updating expert reports to conform with the terms of the other SoP in force when the claim is decided.

6. For death cases: if the claim concerns death from explosive blast injury, follow s 7(3) and the Schedule’s definition of terminal event. Compile medical cause‑of‑death documentation and expert opinion that links the explosive blast injury to the terminal event or condition (for example pneumonia, respiratory failure or cessation of brain function), establishing contribution on the balance of probabilities.

7. Provide conclusory medical opinion addressing the SoP wording directly. Experts should be asked to opine in terms of the SoP’s factors: whether it is more probable than not that the person was exposed to an explosive blast that resulted in tissue, organ or bone damage; or whether it is more probable than not that inability to obtain appropriate clinical management materially contributed to or aggravated an existing explosive blast injury in circumstances within s 10(2). Opinions should make the connection to relevant service explicit.

8. Anticipate counter‑issues raised by the SoP’s silence. Because the instrument does not define “exposed”, “explosive blast” intensity thresholds or “appropriate clinical management”, be prepared to have experts explain what those terms mean in the clinical context of the claimant’s case, and to provide objective supporting data (imaging, audiology, neuropsychological testing where relevant) that maps clinical findings to the SoP’s definition of explosive blast injury (s 7(2)).

9. Update reliance on prior SoPs. Where prior reports referenced the 2012 munitions discharge SoP that has been repealed (s 4), consider whether fresh opinion is required to address the 2020 SoP language.

10. Procedural compliance: lodge, serve and file evidence in accordance with the VEA and MRCA procedural rules that govern the claim. The Statement of Principles provides the causation criteria but not the procedural steps; compliance must therefore align with the governing statutes’ processes.

In short, compliance requires a focused evidentiary strategy aimed at one of the two factors in s 9, careful attention to the Schedule’s definition of relevant service, explicit medical opinion tied to the SoP language, and attention to any importation of other SoPs under s 11.