Statement of Principles concerning gunshot injury (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 24 of 2020)

The Statement concentrates legal-medical nexus analysis into a short list of discrete concepts and definitions drawn from the Schedule 1 Dictionary and the operative clauses.

Balance of probabilities: The Statement is expressed in the terms of the civil standard of proof, more probable than not, both in the RMA’s view of the underlying medical-scientific evidence (s 8) and in the application when assessing whether the specified factors exist in relation to a person’s relevant service (s 9 and s 10). The instrument therefore frames causation as a probabilistic, evidentiary exercise to be applied in individual claims processes under the VEA and MRCA.

Kind of injury and scope: “Gunshot injury” is defined narrowly as damage to body tissue, organs or bone resulting from a gunshot (s 7(2)). Death is included where the gunshot injury contributed to a terminal event; “terminal event” is explicitly defined and includes pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure and cessation of brain function (s 7(3); Schedule 1). This makes clear that causation may be assessed through proximate or ultimate mechanisms of death where the gunshot injury is a contributing factor.

Factors required for connection: The Statement prescribes only two alternative factors which, if shown and linked to relevant service, can establish service connection on the balance of probabilities: (1) experiencing a gunshot (s 9(1)); or (2) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for gunshot injury (s 9(2)). The second factor is confined by s 10(2) to material contribution to, or aggravation of, gunshot injury where the injury was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person’s relevant service. Thus the instrument recognises both primary causation (direct experience of a gunshot) and aggravation/contribution by inadequate management, but limits the latter to particular timing and causal circumstances.

Relationship to service: Section 10 requires that any factor identified under s 9 must be related to the person’s relevant service. “Relevant service” is defined as eligible war service (other than operational service), defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA, or peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1). The instrument therefore confines its application to the statutory categories listed.

Interaction with other Statements: Section 11 provides that where a factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another RMA Statement of Principles, the factors in that other Statement apply according to their terms as in force from time to time. The Statement is therefore designed to operate alongside the RMA’s broader suite of Statements, allowing cross-reference and deferral of medical-nexus issues to other established Statements where relevant.

Authority and administrative status: The instrument is a Statement of Principles made under VEA s 196B(3) (s 3). It is not itself a schedule of benefits, nor does it create offences or enforcement mechanisms; it is a determinative medical standard intended to be applied in claims processes governed by the VEA and MRCA (s 5, s 8).

Primary persons affected

• Claimants: The Statement applies to persons making claims to which s 120B of the VEA or s 339 of the MRCA apply (s 5). Those persons include veterans and members seeking recognition that gunshot injury or death from gunshot injury is connected with their relevant service. The instrument defines “relevant service” (Schedule 1), restricting the population to eligible war service (excluding operational service), defence service (excluding hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA, and peacetime service under the MRCA.
• Deceased persons’ estates: Because the Statement covers death from gunshot injury where death was contributed to by the gunshot injury (s 7(3)), executors, administrators and dependants who lodge claims involving a terminal event will be affected.

Decision-makers and officials

• Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA): The RMA is the instrument-maker and the authoritative determiner of the medical principles that will be applied (s 3, s 8). The RMA’s role is explicitly to set the medical-scientific view that informs decision-making under the VEA/MRCA.
• Decision authorities operating under the VEA/MRCA: While the instrument does not itself name the decision body, it expressly applies to claims under statutory provisions (s 5). Administrators who assess claims under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA will use this Statement to determine medical causation or contribution.

Medical practitioners and experts

• Treating clinicians and independent medical specialists will be asked to provide evidence that addresses the two prescribed factors (experiencing a gunshot; inability to obtain appropriate clinical management) and to link those factors to the person’s relevant service per s 10. The Statement’s definitional clarity, such as the meaning of “terminal event” (Schedule 1), frames the kind of medico-legal opinion that will be relevant.

Other RMA Statements and claim handlers

• Where a factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement, claim handlers and experts must consult that other Statement and apply its factors as in force (s 11). This creates interdependence between Statements and requires awareness of the current operative Statements.

Indirectly affected parties

• Legal advisers, advocates and representatives who prepare claims must align evidence and legal submissions with the specific, narrow factors and definitions set by the Statement. The repeal of the 2012 Statement (s 4) means that advisers must ensure they rely on the 2020 instrument’s text for claims commencing on or after the commencement date (s 2).
• Records custodians and health services who hold clinical records relevant to “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” will be frequented for documentary proof required under s 9(2), where applicable.

Who does not fall within scope

• Persons whose service falls outside the Schedule 1 definition of “relevant service” are not within the Statement’s application. The instrument excludes operational service from “eligible war service”, and excludes hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service from “defence service” under the VEA (Schedule 1). The Statement therefore does not apply to every category of military service.

This Statement does not impose civil or criminal duties or confer standalone rights; it prescribes the factual and medical criteria decision-makers must apply when determining service connection for gunshot injury and related death in claims under the VEA and MRCA. Nevertheless, it generates practical duties and entitlements within the claims process.

Duty to apply the Statement in relevant claims

• Decision-makers assessing claims under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA must apply the factors set by this Statement when determining whether gunshot injury or death from gunshot injury is connected with the person’s relevant service, because the Statement applies to those claims (s 5). The RMA’s determination under s 196B(3) is the authoritative medical guidance (s 3, s 8).

Evidential duties on claimants

• To meet the balance of probabilities test that a factor exists (s 9(1)-(2)), claimants will effectively need to adduce evidence addressing the prescribed factors. The Statement’s language requires factual proof that a claimant experienced a gunshot or that there was an inability to obtain appropriate clinical management, and that such factor is related to the claimant’s relevant service (s 9; s 10). Although the Statement itself does not enumerate documentary or expert evidence types, the practical duty is to produce evidence sufficient to satisfy the civil standard against the Statement’s factors.

Duty concerning timing and causation for management factor

• The second factor (inability to obtain appropriate clinical management) is constrained by s 10(2): it applies only where the gunshot injury was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, the person’s relevant service, and where the inability materially contributed to or aggravated the gunshot injury. That imposes an evidentiary requirement to show both the timing of the original injury relative to service and a material contribution/aggravation by lack of appropriate treatment during relevant service.

Duty to observe cross-Statement links

• Where a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement, the relevant factors in that other Statement must be applied “in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Principles as in force from time to time” (s 11). This creates a duty for decision-makers and advisers to identify and incorporate other Statements where a factor invokes them.

Rights created or clarified by the Statement

• The Statement clarifies that “death from gunshot injury” includes death from specified terminal events to which the gunshot injury contributed (s 7(3); Schedule 1). For claimants and dependants, this defines the scope of death-related claims where a terminal event listed in the Dictionary (for example pneumonia, respiratory failure) is alleged to have been contributed to by the gunshot injury.

Administrative rights and legal recourse

• The Statement itself does not create a bespoke appeal or review mechanism. Rights of review or appeal will arise under the underlying statutes (VEA and MRCA). The Statement’s role is evidentiary; any procedural rights flow from the claim framework under those statutes (s 5).

No express penalties or obligations on third parties

• The instrument does not impose criminal liability, civil penalties, or mandatory reporting obligations on third parties. It is a determinative instrument for assessing causation in the statutory claims process (s 3, s 8).

The Statement of Principles contains no enforcement provisions, penalties, or offences. It is an evidentiary and determinative instrument issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority under VEA s 196B(3) (s 3, s 8), intended to guide how claims for entitlements under the VEA and MRCA are evaluated; it does not itself impose sanctions or criminalise conduct.

What is enforceable and where enforcement lies

• The instrument’s function is to set medical causation criteria that decision-makers use when adjudicating claims under s 120B of the VEA or s 339 of the MRCA (s 5). Enforcement in the sense of compliance is therefore indirect: administrative decision-makers are expected to apply the Statement within the statutory claims processes, and affected parties can seek whatever reviews or appeals those statutes provide against administrative decisions informed by this Statement. The Statement itself does not prescribe remedies, penalties, or enforcement mechanisms.

Administrative accountability and discretion

• The RMA’s authority to make the Statement is statutory (s 3). The Statement records the RMA’s conclusion on the medical‑scientific evidence (s 8) and sets the factual factors (s 9). It does not specify review mechanisms for its own making. Any challenge to the way the Statement is applied in an individual decision would need to proceed through the review and appeal channels available under the VEA or MRCA or by any relevant administrative law pathways, but those channels are not described in the Statement.

Implications for decision-makers

• There is an implied administrative duty on bodies adjudicating claims under the VEA or MRCA to have regard to the RMA’s Statements when determining causal connection; the Statement is crafted to be incorporated into statutory decision-making. The instrument therefore functions as a binding medical standard within the administrative process rather than an instrument that is directly enforceable through penalties.

Absence of enforcement details

• Because the Statement does not create offences or penalties, it creates no prosecutorial or disciplinary obligations. Any non‑application or misapplication of the Statement by an administrative decision‑maker gives rise to potential grounds for administrative review or appeal under the statutes, but those procedures and remedies are located in the underlying laws, not in this Statement.

Statutory foundation and application

• The Statement is made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (s 3) and explicitly applies to claims to which s 120B of the VEA or s 339 of the MRCA applies (s 5). Consequently, the Statement operates as an evidentiary medical standard within the statutory frameworks of the VEA and the MRCA for the specific services and claim types identified.

Repeal and substitution

• The instrument repeals the previously applicable Statement concerning physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 49 of 2012 (Federal Register No. F2012L01790) (s 4). That repeal means that for claims falling within the instrument’s scope after the commencement date, decision-makers must apply the 2020 Statement rather than the 2012 instrument. Practitioners must therefore check the effective dates in relation to claim lodgement and decision dates to determine which Statement governed the assessment.

Interaction with other RMA Statements

• Section 11 provides a mechanism for cross-reference and operational interaction between Statements: if a factor in this Statement refers to an injury or disease that is covered by another Statement made under s 196B(3) of the VEA, the other Statement’s factors apply “in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Principles as in force from time to time” (s 11). This creates an operational hierarchy or network: where a factor in this Statement implicates another health condition subject to a separate Statement, the separate Statement’s factors will determine how that condition is treated in the causation analysis.

Limits embedded by definitions

• The Schedule 1 definition of “relevant service” shapes the Statement’s interaction with service‑related provisions in the VEA and MRCA. For instance, the exclusion of operational service from eligible war service, and the exclusion of hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service from defence service under the VEA, mean that certain statutory entitlements or processes under the VEA/MRCA that are specific to those categories will not be informed by this Statement (Schedule 1). Practitioners therefore must align the Statement’s definitional scope with the statutory definitions and eligibility criteria elsewhere in the VEA and MRCA.

Relationship to claim decision rules

• The Statement informs medical causation assessment under the statutory provisions identified in s 5. It does not change entitlement rules, benefit rates, or administrative processes set out in the VEA or MRCA, but it influences the factual standard for establishing that a gunshot injury or death from gunshot injury is connected with relevant service. In short, the Statement supplies the medical-nexus input to decision rules contained in the underlying statutes.

Procedural and evidential implications

• Because the Statement sets a limited list of factors and definitions, it narrows the evidentiary enquiry that decision-makers must undertake for gunshot injury claims under the VEA/MRCA. Where a claim raises issues that fall within the scope of another RMA Statement, the decision-maker must apply that other Statement’s factors as current (s 11), which may require fetching and applying multiple Statements to a single factual matrix.

No standalone override of statutes

• The instrument does not purport to amend or override the substantive or procedural provisions of the VEA or MRCA. It is an instrument made pursuant to the VEA that informs how those statutes’ claim provisions are applied; any statutory rule taking precedence over RMA determinations would remain governed by the text of the statute itself.

Creation and commencement

• The Statement is captioned “Statement of Principles concerning gunshot injury (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 24 of 2020)” and is dated 24 April 2020 (cover). The instrument expressly commences on 25 May 2020 (s 2).

Repeal of previous instrument

• The instrument repeals the Statement concerning physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 49 of 2012, Federal Register No. F2012L01790 (s 4). That is the only repeal recorded within this instrument.

Authority and making provision

• The instrument is made under VEA s 196B(3) (s 3). The RMA’s common seal and the Chairperson’s signature (Professor Nicholas Saunders AO) appear on the instrument, indicating formal execution of the instrument on behalf of the RMA (cover).

No subsequent amendments recorded in this text

• The text supplied contains the original 2020 instrument and records no further amendments, revocations or replacements beyond the repeal of the 2012 Statement. Any later amendment or repeal would appear in a later instrument or legislative update, but none is included in the supplied material.

Effective relationships for claims timing

• Because the instrument commenced on 25 May 2020 (s 2) and repealed the 2012 Statement (s 4), the critical dates for practitioners are (a) the date of the act (24 April 2020), (b) the commencement date (25 May 2020), and (c) the repealed instrument’s prior duration. Determination of which Statement governs a particular claim will depend on the timing of the claim in relation to the commencement date, and possibly on the timing of the relevant events alleged in the claim, though those procedural specifics are governed by the VEA and MRCA.

References to other instruments

• Section 11 contemplates that factors in this Statement may refer to conditions governed by other Statements “as in force from time to time”. That clause anticipates future amendments to other Statements without requiring amendment of this instrument; the cross‑referenced Statements’ amendment histories therefore interact operationally with this instrument.

The instrument text supplied contains no recorded litigation history. It is a Statement of Principles made by the Repatriation Medical Authority under VEA s 196B(3) (s 3) and contains no references to judicial decisions, administrative appeals, or litigation involving this Statement. The instrument also does not cite or rely upon any case law within its text.

Implications of absence of recorded litigation

• The absence of litigation in the instrument itself does not preclude subsequent challenges to decisions that apply the Statement in claims under the VEA or MRCA. Any contestation of how the Statement is applied in an individual administrative decision would proceed through the statutory review and appeal channels available under those Acts or via administrative law remedies; those procedural avenues are not described in this instrument.

How to find litigation (practical note grounded in the instrument)

• If a practitioner needs to identify whether the Statement has been the subject of judicial review or other litigation, they will need to search administrative law and veterans’ entitlements case law databases for decisions that cite this Statement or decisions made after its commencement; the instrument itself does not provide those references.

No guidance on interpretation from courts included

• Because the instrument does not include any judicial interpretation, decision-makers and advisers must interpret its terms , for example, what constitutes sufficient evidence of “experiencing a gunshot” or “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” , within the statutory and evidentiary frameworks that govern claims, noting that such interpretations might ultimately be developed through case law over time.

Narrow set of operative factors

• The Statement prescribes only two factors that can establish a service link for gunshot injury (s 9(1)-(2). If a claimant cannot establish either “experiencing a gunshot” or “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management”, the Statement provides no alternative medical pathway for establishing service connection for gunshot injury or related death. Practitioners must take care not to assume broader causal pathways exist under this Statement.

Timing and causal limits on the clinical management factor

• The “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” factor is restricted by s 10(2) to circumstances where the gunshot injury was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, the person’s relevant service, and the inability materially contributed to or aggravated the gunshot injury. This is a two‑part limitation: first, the original injury’s temporal relation to service must be before or during but not arising out of service; second, the inability to obtain appropriate care must materially contribute to or aggravate the gunshot injury. Misstating this factor as applicable to injuries arising out of service would be incorrect.

Definition traps: “relevant service” exclusions

• The Schedule 1 definition of “relevant service” excludes certain categories: operational service is excluded from eligible war service; hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service are excluded from defence service under the VEA (Schedule 1). Claims by persons whose service falls within those excluded categories will not be governed by this Statement, even if they involve gunshot injury.

Death scope and terminal events

• “Death from gunshot injury” includes death resulting from a terminal event to which the gunshot injury contributed (s 7(3); Schedule 1). The Dictionary lists specific terminal events such as pneumonia and cardiac arrest. Practitioners must ensure that evidence aligns with the instrument’s definition of terminal events and demonstrate contribution by the gunshot injury to those terminal events. Assuming that any proximate cause of death qualifies without demonstrating contribution would be a mistake.

Cross-Statement dependencies

• Section 11 makes this Statement potentially dependent on other Statements if a factor refers to an injury already covered elsewhere. Failure to identify and apply the cross-referenced Statement (and any updates to it) could result in incomplete causation analysis. Practitioners should check whether the factor at issue invokes another Statement and, if so, apply that Statement’s factors “as in force from time to time” (s 11).

Balance of probabilities standard versus scientific certainty

• The RMA frames the Statement on the civil standard: “more probable than not” (s 8). That standard means a claimant’s evidence must make it more than 50 per cent likely that the required factor existed and was related to relevant service. However, the instrument does not require medical certainty; still, claimants must produce probative evidence tailored to the Statement’s narrow factors. Conflating the RMA’s probabilistic standard with clinical certainty is a common error.

No procedural detail or evidentiary checklist

• The Statement sets substantive factors but does not prescribe procedural steps, evidentiary formats or specific kinds of medical evidence required. Practitioners must therefore translate the Statement’s terms into practical evidentiary strategies without statutory guidance on admissibility or sufficiency.

Commencement and transitional issues

• The Statement commences on 25 May 2020 (s 2) and repeals a 2012 instrument (s 4). For claims spanning the repeal/commencement date, practitioners must determine which Statement applied at the time of adjudication or which Statement governs the particular facts; the instrument itself does not resolve transitional questions.

No penalties or enforcement mechanisms

• Because the instrument is a standards instrument, it creates no direct penalties for non-compliance. Challenges arise only through administrative decision-making processes under the underlying statutes.

Align evidence with the two prescribed factors

• For any claim to which s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA applies (s 5), ensure the evidence distinctly establishes at least one of the two factors in s 9: (1) that the person experienced a gunshot (s 9(1)); or (2) that the person suffered an inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for a gunshot injury, and that this inability materially contributed to or aggravated the injury (s 9(2), s 10(2)). Because the Statement furnishes the medical causation criteria, compliance requires direct evidentiary attention to those elements.

Demonstrate relationship to relevant service

• Section 10 requires that any factor relied on must be related to the person’s relevant service. Practically, one must gather service records, incident reports (where available), medical records contemporaneous with service, and any expert medical opinion linking the factor to the service. The Schedule 1 definition of “relevant service” should be checked and quoted where necessary (Schedule 1).

If relying on the clinical-management factor, respect the timing constraint

• Where the claim relies on s 9(2), ensure documentation shows the original gunshot injury was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, relevant service; and that during relevant service there was an inability to obtain appropriate clinical management which materially contributed or aggravated the condition (s 10(2)). That will commonly require chronological medical records and expert opinion establishing material contribution or aggravation.

Address death claims with terminal-event evidence

• For death claims, obtain the death certificate, autopsy or coronial findings (if any), and expert medical evidence on how the gunshot injury contributed to the terminal event. The Statement includes specific terminal events in the Dictionary (Schedule 1) and contemplates contribution to such events as a route to a death finding (s 7(3); Schedule 1). Ensure the expert addresses proximate and ultimate causation relative to the listed terminal events.

Check for cross-application of other Statements

• If any factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles, identify that other Statement and comply with its factors “as in force from time to time” (s 11). This requires practitioners to keep up to date with the current versions of other RMA Statements and to align medical evidence with those Statements’ criteria.

Use the RMA’s probabilistic framing in medical opinions

• Medical expert reports should be framed to the balance of probabilities required by the Statement (s 8). Experts should avoid asserting speculative or absolute conclusions and instead express opinions in probabilistic terms about whether it is more likely than not that the factor existed and was related to relevant service.

Document authority and contemporaneous facts

• Include in submissions the RMA instrument citation and the relevant sections relied upon (for example, s 7 for definitions, s 9 for factors, s 10 for relationship to service, and Schedule 1 for definitions). Provide contemporaneous records of the incident, management attempts, in‑service medical notes, and any communications demonstrating inability to obtain appropriate care where s 9(2) is invoked.

Be alert to excluded service categories

• Confirm the person’s service category falls within the Schedule 1 definition of “relevant service”. Where the person’s service was operational, hazardous, or British nuclear test defence service as excluded in Schedule 1, this Statement will not govern. If there is ambiguity about the service category, obtain authoritative service records and legal advice to determine applicability.

Timing and transitional practice

• For claims and decisions straddling the repeal and commencement dates (repeal of 2012 Statement and commencement of 2020 Statement on 25 May 2020), verify which Statement was in force at the time of the decision or which applies by operation of the VEA/MRCA. The instrument itself does not set transitional rules beyond the repeal (s 4), so align filings and evidence with the Statement applicable to the claim.

Keep a contemporaneous audit trail in submissions

• Because the Statement provides the determinative medical criteria, administrative decision-makers will look for clear mapping between the claimant’s evidence and the Statement’s factors. Prepare a compliance table in submissions listing each required element (factor, relation to service, timing, cross‑Statements if any) and the corresponding documentary and expert evidence (citations to records, experts’ opinions framed in probabilistic language).