Statement of Principles concerning suicide and attempted suicide (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 40 of 2025)

The SOP builds on three core legal and medical concepts: (1) the injurious event defined, (2) the evidentiary threshold, and (3) the list of qualifying factors with temporal rules and service nexus requirements.

1. Defined injurious event. Section 7 identifies the covered conditions as suicide, attempted suicide, and death from suicide or attempted suicide. Suicide and attempted suicide are given straightforward medical definitions: acts intended to kill oneself (s 7(2)). Importantly, the SOP treats death from a terminal event that was contributed to by a person’s suicide or attempted suicide as within scope (s 7(3); Schedule 1, terminal event). That extends the causal frame beyond a single proximate act to situations where suicide materially contributes to terminal pathology, as listed (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function).

2. Evidentiary threshold. The SOP is framed on the balance of probabilities. Section 8 states the Authority’s view, based on sound medical‑scientific evidence, that it is “more probable than not” that suicide and attempted suicide can be related to relevant service. The SOP therefore supplies a set of factors that, if established and linked to relevant service, will be treated as satisfying the balance of probabilities test in claims under ss 120B VEA or 339 MRCA (s 5 and s 8 read together with s 9 and s 10).

3. Factors and timing. Section 9 is the operative checklist. It requires that at least one of the enumerated factors must exist before suicide/attempted suicide can be said, on the balance of probabilities, to be connected with relevant service. The list includes: clinically significant mental disorders at clinical onset (s 9(1)); exposure to specified severe traumatic events (category 1A and 1B stressors, ss 9(2)-(3) with Schedule 1 definitions); specific bereavements and family history with stated look‑back windows (ss 9(4)-(9)); category 2 stressors with a 10 year window and a Schedule 1 definition that emphasises chronic, ongoing distress arising in many possible service‑connected circumstances (s 9(10) and Schedule 1); certain personal behaviours such as perpetration of bullying (s 9(11)); childhood maltreatment (s 9(12)); recent self‑injurious acts (s 9(13)); medical conditions (severe disability, epilepsy, persistent pain, traumatic brain injury, concussion) with varying windows (ss 9(14)-(23)); specified medications and illicit substances with short exposure windows (ss 9(18)-(19)); bariatric surgery within 10 years (s 9(22)); intimate partner violence within 1 year (s 9(23)); and inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening (s 9(24)).

Two additional structural concepts affect how factors operate. First, subsection 10(1) requires that any factor that is relied upon must be related to the person’s relevant service. Second, subsection 10(2) limits the operation of s 9(26) , that factor applies only as to material contribution or aggravation where the suicide/attempted suicide was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, relevant service. Finally, s 11 provides that where a factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another SOP, the terms of that other SOP govern how those factors apply.

These concepts combine medical classification, temporal windows, and the statutory requirement that the factor be linked to relevant service to produce the decision‑making rule. The definitions in Schedule 1 supply operational meaning for terms such as category 1A and 1B stressors, category 2 stressor, clinically significant disorder of mental health, intimate partner violence, relevant service, witness, and terminal event. Several definitions are qualified by notes, for example that “clinically significant disorder” does not require actual receipt of treatment.

Directly affected persons are veterans and members of the Forces who make claims under the VEA (s 120B) or under the MRCA (s 339), and whose claims raise whether suicide, attempted suicide, or death from those acts is connected with relevant service (s 5). The SOP is the Repatriation Medical Authority’s medical‑scientific statement for use in adjudicating such claims. It will therefore affect the legal outcomes of compensation, entitlements and any decision that turns on a causal connection between service and suicide/attempted suicide.

Claimants and their advisers. Applicants who pursue a claim under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA will need to engage with the specific factors in s 9. The presence or absence of particular factors, and whether those factors can be shown to be related to a person’s relevant service, will materially influence claim outcomes. The SOP’s structure places a premium on evidence that links time‑limited stressors, medical conditions, exposures to particular medicines or substances, clinical diagnoses at the time of “clinical onset”, or familyhistory events to both the clinical event and to relevant service.

Decision makers who apply the SOP. The instrument is made by the Repatriation Medical Authority (s 3). While the instrument itself does not specify the administrative decision maker, it is expressly applicable in the statutory claims framework , s 5 identifies the VEA and MRCA claim provisions to which this SOP applies. Administrators, medical advisors and assessors charged with applying the SOP will need to interpret terms defined in Schedule 1, establish timing of clinical onset and of each factor, and determine whether a factor is related to relevant service under s 10.

Medical practitioners and forensic experts. The SOP will shape the kind of medical evidence that is treated as sufficient. The definition of “clinically significant disorder” explicitly states that ongoing management need not have been provided for the condition to qualify (Schedule 1). Medical reports will therefore be required to record the clinical onset timing, severity, and whether any qualifying factor (for example, epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, persistent pain) was present within the stated windows.

Family members and third parties. Several factors turn on family and relationship events , parental suicide/attempts, death of siblings, intimate partner violence, and close personal relationships experiencing severe stressors. Evidence from family members will therefore be relevant. The SOP’s definition of “witness” (Schedule 1) excludes exposure through public broadcasting or mass media coverage, which affects reliance on hearsay or media reports.

Institutions and record‑holders. Military medical records, service records, hospital records, prison/custody records, school records, coroner findings, toxicology, pharmacy dispensing data and surgical records will acquire greater significance because many factors in s 9 require precise timing and documentation (for example medication within 14 days, mefloquine within 3 months, concussion within 5 years, bariatric surgery within 10 years). Where a factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another SOP, the instrument requires application of that other SOP’s terms (s 11), which may bring additional institutional record types into play.

No penalties are imposed by the SOP itself. The SOP does not criminalise conduct or create fines. Its effect is evidentiary and decisional for claims under the identified statutory provisions. The 2016 SOP is repealed (s 4), so those relying on the prior instrument for ongoing claims must consider the repeal and transitional arrangements as recorded in the compilation endnotes.

The instrument does not create general duties in the sense of regulatory obligations or criminal offences. Rather, it creates normative rules for decision makers on how to treat particular medical and psychosocial factors when assessing whether suicide, attempted suicide, or death from those acts is connected with relevant service. Rights and duties are therefore indirect: they arise through the VEA/MRCA claim processes that the SOP supports.

Obligations on decision‑makers (implicit). While the instrument does not set out an explicit obligation in prescriptive terms, its making under s 196B(3) of the VEA and its application to ss 120B VEA and 339 MRCA means that decision‑makers using the VEA/MRCA framework are to apply the SOP as the Repatriation Medical Authority’s medical‑scientific view. Section 9 prescribes the factors “that must exist” before the SOP’s medical conclusion can be reached on the balance of probabilities. Section 10 requires the identified factors to be related to relevant service. Those elements function as constraints on adjudicative reasoning: a decision maker who reaches a contrary medical conclusion without regard to the SOP will be departing from the Authority’s stated medical‑scientific view.

Rights of claimants. The SOP supplies a catalogue of circumstances and medical conditions which, if established and related to relevant service, will be treated as meeting the balance of probabilities test. This catalogue constitutes a procedural right in the sense that a claimant who adduces evidence of any qualifying factor and its service nexus can expect the SOP to support a finding of connection. The definition of “clinically significant disorder of mental health” clarifies that absence of actual treatment does not preclude a condition from qualifying (Schedule 1). Claimants therefore retain the right to rely on untreated but clinically significant conditions so long as the disorder is shown.

Interaction with other SOPs. Section 11 provides that if a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease for which another SOP exists, the terms of that other SOP apply. That creates a rule of priority and incorporation: claimants and decision makers must consult any referenced SOPs to determine how those injuries/diseases are to be treated within the s 9 framework.

Temporal and relational constraints. Rights to a favourable finding are constrained by time windows and relational tests in s 9 and by the requirement in s 10 that the factor be related to relevant service. For example, certain family history factors require the claimant to have been under 18 at the time of the parent’s suicide, or impose look‑back periods measured in years. Claimants therefore have the right to attempt to establish service‑relation, but that right must be exercised within the SOP’s temporal and causal parameters.

No express right to review or appeal is created by the SOP itself. Any procedural rights of review, merits review or judicial review will derive from the underlying VEA and MRCA statutory regimes and administrative law, not from the SOP text.

The instrument contains no penalty, sanction, enforcement mechanism or criminal provision. It is a Statement of Principles made by the Repatriation Medical Authority setting out medical‑scientific views to be used in claims under the VEA and MRCA (ss 3, 5 and 8). The SOP therefore operates as an evidentiary tool rather than as an enforcement instrument.

Practical enforcement occurs indirectly through the claims processes established in the VEA and MRCA. The SOP states the factors that, if present and related to relevant service, will be treated as satisfying the balance of probabilities link between suicide/attempted suicide and service (s 9 and s 10). Enforcement of the SOP’s content is therefore carried out by the decision makers administering VEA and MRCA entitlements, who must apply the Authority’s medical view in assessing claims under ss 120B VEA and 339 MRCA (s 5). The SOP does not itself set decision‑making procedures, evidentiary rules, remedies, or appeal processes.

There are no monetary penalties, criminal sanctions, civil damages provisions, or injunctive powers within the instrument. If a party believes the SOP has been misapplied in a particular claim decision, remedies would arise under the statutory review and judicial review mechanisms available under the relevant Acts and administrative law, not under the SOP text. The compilation endnotes record amendment and repeal history (s 4 and Endnotes 3-4), which are relevant to questions about which SOP applied to a particular claim at a particular time.

Implementation and compliance risk functions as a practical enforcement cost. Decision‑makers must interpret and apply terms such as “clinical onset”, “related to the relevant service”, and the Schedule 1 definitions. Where those terms are ambiguous in a particular fact pattern, contested claims may generate administrative decisions that are then subject to internal review or judicial challenge. The SOP itself does not prescribe how to resolve ambiguous temporal evidence, how to allocate burdens of proof beyond the balance of probabilities framing, or how to weigh competing medical opinion. Those questions will be determined in the claim adjudication process, drawing on the SOP as medical guidance rather than as definitive procedural law.

The Statement of Principles is made under power conferred by subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. It explicitly applies to claims to which s 120B of the VEA or s 339 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 apply (s 5). That creates the principal statutory interface: the SOP provides the Repatriation Medical Authority’s medical‑scientific view for use in resolving causal connection questions that arise under those statutory provisions. The SOP therefore functions as an input to the adjudicative rules and entitlements established by the VEA and MRCA.

Relevance of other SOPs. Section 11 provides an internal cross‑instrument rule: where a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease that is the subject of another SOP made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA, that other SOP’s factors and terms “apply in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Principles as in force from time to time”. Practically, this means that a factor in s 9 that invokes a separate disease or injury does not create a new assessment rule, but imports the existing SOP for that condition. Decision‑makers must therefore cross‑refer to other SOPs when s 9 factors point to diseases such as traumatic brain injury, epilepsy or persistent pain where other SOPs might exist.

Repeal of the 2016 SOP. Section 4 repeals the Statement of Principles No. 66 of 2016. The compilation endnotes record the repeal and the amendment that produced this instrument. Any claims that straddle the repeal date will require attention to transitional and application provisions recorded in the endnotes or in the Register, because the relevant SOP that applies to a particular claim will depend on the claim’s timing and the commencement of the instrument (s 2, Endnote 3).

Interaction with record‑keeping and evidentiary law. The SOP’s effectiveness depends on the availability and admissibility of medical, service and personal records. Many s 9 factors require narrow windows of exposure to medications, surgeries, or events; proving those facts will engage statutory regimes and agency practices that govern disclosure of service records, medical records, pharmacy dispensing data, and coronial findings. The SOP does not itself alter privacy, disclosure or evidentiary rules; it operates within existing law that governs how those records are obtained and used in claims.

No contradiction with criminal or civil law is created. The SOP does not create criminal offences nor does it modify civil liability or compensation outside the VEA/MRCA frameworks. Where a factor involves legal processes (for example detention or court appearances listed in category 2 stressor Schedule 1(g)), the SOP references those circumstances as relevant stressors, but it does not change criminal law or court procedures.

Administrative law interactions. Because the SOP reflects the Repatriation Medical Authority’s medical‑scientific determinations, administrative decision‑makers are expected to have regard to it in adjudicating VEA and MRCA claims. Where a claimant or decision maker contends that the SOP has been misapplied or that alternative medical evidence should overturn the SOP conclusion, usual administrative law remedies , internal review, merits review (where available under the statutory scheme), and judicial review for jurisdictional error , will govern challenges. The SOP itself does not alter those remedial pathways.

Amendments and legislative modification. The compilation records that the instrument was amended by Amendment No. 78 of 2025 (Endnotes 3-4). The endnotes also note that certain sections were repealed or replaced under provisions of the Legislation Act 2003 (for example, s 2 and s 4 were affected). Practitioners must therefore consult the Register for uncommenced or modified provisions and for transitional provisions that affect which SOP applies to a given claim.

The compilation includes this SOP as amended up to 22 September 2025. The endnotes record the legislative history and the amendment history. The original SOP in this compilation was registered 16 April 2025 and commenced on 19 May 2025 (Endnote 3). It was subsequently amended by Amendment Statement of Principles No. 78 of 2025, registered 8 September 2025 and commencing 22 September 2025 (Endnote 3).

Specific amendments recorded in the endnotes include changes to Schedule 1 definitions. Endnote 4 records that Schedule 1 - Dictionary entries for “intimate partner violence”, “intimate relationship” and “intimate partner” were revised by rs No. 77 of 2025. The endnotes also indicate that Section 2 was affected by rep LA s 48D and Section 4 was affected by rep LA s 48C. These cross‑references reflect editorial or formal amendments made under the Legislation Act 2003 rather than substantive changes to the SOP’s medical content, but they do alter the compilation’s presentation and the formal instrument numbering.

Section 4 expressly repeals the earlier Statement of Principles concerning suicide and attempted suicide (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 66 of 2016) (F2016L01149). The repeal is recorded in the main instrument text (s 4) and is mirrored in the endnotes. This means the 2016 SOP no longer forms part of the operative compilation after the commencement date, and claim analyses must apply the No. 40 of 2025 SOP for claims that fall within its operation dates. The compilation warns that uncommenced amendments are not shown in the compiled text and that users should consult the Register for any amendments affecting the law (About this compilation).

Practical consequences of the amendment history. Lawyers and advisers must establish which SOP applied at the time of claim lodgement and at the time of the contested decision. The compilation does not include transitional application, saving or other provisions in detail; it instructs readers to consult the Register for any such provisions (About this compilation). The endnotes therefore function as the primary pointer to any transitional arrangements affecting ongoing claims. Because the SOP was amended within months of commencement, practitioners should treat claims occurring in mid‑2025 as potentially affected by two separate instruments in quick succession and check for any transitional rules.

No other substantive amendment details are contained in the instrument text beyond the schedule definition revisions and the repeal of the 2016 SOP. The compilation’s endnotes provide the necessary registration dates, commencement dates and references to the amending instruments. For the authoritative amendment record and any uncommenced changes, the Register must be consulted, as the compilation itself warns.

The compiled instrument contains no internal references to judicial decisions, case law or litigation about its interpretation or operation. The compilation’s endnotes list the legislation history and amendment history but do not record any court decisions regarding this SOP (Endnotes 3-4). The SOP therefore has no recorded litigation history within this compilation.

Practitioners should note two related points. First, absence of litigation history in the compilation does not mean that disputes will not be litigated. The SOP will be applied by decision‑makers in resolving claims under ss 120B VEA and 339 MRCA, and contested factual or legal interpretations of terms such as “clinical onset”, “related to the relevant service”, or particular Schedule 1 definitions may be the subject of internal review, merits review (if the statute allows), or judicial review. Second, the SOP’s cross‑reference to other SOPs (s 11) means disputes that raise how other SOPs apply may require consideration of the relevant instruments and any litigation history attached to them. For example, if a s 9 factor refers to traumatic brain injury and there exists a separate SOP for TBI, precedents concerning that TBI SOP may become relevant to claim adjudication.

Because the SOP functions as a medical‑scientific statement rather than primary entitlement rules, litigation arising from its application is likely to focus on the facts of causation, the sufficiency of evidence to meet the balance of probabilities test, and administrative law grounds for review. Such litigation, if it occurs, will be reported in external case law databases and would not be reflected in this compilation unless cited in a subsequent amendment or endnote. The compilation therefore leaves open the prospect of litigation but records none.

This SOP contains multiple technical and timing features that create traps for claimants, decision makers and advisers. Below are concrete items to watch for, each grounded in the instrument text.

1. “Clinical onset” is central but not defined. Numerous factors in s 9 require presence at particular times relative to the person’s “clinical onset”. The SOP does not define “clinical onset” in Schedule 1. That absence means parties must establish when the clinical onset occurred by reference to medical records and expert evidence. Disagreement about the date of clinical onset can be decisive because many qualifying factors are time‑limited.

2. “Clinically significant disorder of mental health” does not require that management was provided. The Schedule 1 definition clarifies that “to warrant ongoing management does not require that any actual management was received or given for the condition”. In practice, this means a lack of treatment does not negate the disorder’s qualifying status. However, decision makers will require medical evidence that the disorder was of sufficient severity to warrant ongoing management.

3. Tight, varied temporal windows. The SOP applies different look‑back periods for different factors. Examples include:

   • parental death by suicide within 25 years, where claimant was 18 or under at the time (s 9(6));
   • sibling death by suicide within 15 years (s 9(9));
   • category 2 stressor within 10 years (s 9(10));
   • self‑injurious act within 5 years (s 9(13));
   • persistent pain for at least 6 months prior to clinical onset (s 9(16));
   • a short medication window of 14 days for a listed set of medicines (s 9(18));
   • mefloquine within 3 months (s 9(19));
   • MDPV or 25I‑NBOMe within 12 hours (s 9(20));
   • concussion within 5 years (s 9(21));
   • bariatric surgery within 10 years (s 9(22));
   • intimate partner violence within 1 year (s 9(23)). These diverse windows require precise evidence and create risk that a factor will be excluded because of timing.

4. Medication lists are specific and partial. The SOP lists particular drugs (benzodiazepines, clofazimine, corticosteroids other than topical, interferons, montelukast, raltegravir, zolpidem, zopiclone) within 14 days as qualifying (s 9(18)). Absent a listed drug, proximity to an unlisted medication is not captured by the SOP. Similarly, mefloquine is separately listed with a 3 month window (s 9(19)). Practitioners must check pharmacy records and prescriptions against the exact lists.

5. Limited definition of “witness”. The Schedule 1 definition of “witness” requires that the person “experiences an incident at the time it occurs and can give direct evidence of it”. It expressly excludes persons exposed only to public broadcasting or mass media coverage. For category 1B stressors that rely on witnessing, reliance on media reports or second‑hand accounts will not satisfy the definition.

6. Narrow reach of subsection 10(2). Subsection 10(2) constrains the operation of s 9(26): that factor applies only where suicide/attempted suicide was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, relevant service. This is a specialised temporal and causal limitation. Advisers must pay attention to whether the suicide occurred before/during service and whether it arose out of service to determine applicability.

7. Category 2 stressor ambiguity. The Schedule 1 definition of category 2 stressor covers a broad array of chronic negative life events, some of which may be only indirectly linked to service (for example, social isolation, discrimination, financial hardship). The SOP emphasises that such stressors can arise during service, as a result of separation, or in transition to civilian life. The breadth of category 2 creates evidentiary complexity and potential disputes about the service nexus required under s 10.

8. Some factors rely on events affecting others. Several factors condition on events experienced by other people with whom the claimant has a close family bond or close personal relationship (ss 9(4), 9(5), 9(10), 9(12)). Establishing both the event and the claimant’s relation to the person will be necessary.

9. No procedural detail for assessing causation. The SOP supplies the factors but does not set out how to weigh them, how multiple factors combine, or how to approach competing expert opinion. Decision makers must apply ordinary evidentiary and statutory principles in adjudication, creating potential for contested methodology.

10. Repeal and amendment timing. The 2016 SOP is repealed (s 4) and the instrument was amended shortly after commencement. Practitioners must check the Register and the endnotes for transitional rules and determine which SOP was in force for claims whose events straddle the commencement or amendment dates.

11. No penalties or enforcement mechanisms within the SOP. The SOP does not state remedies for misapplication. Challenges to its application will be conducted under the VEA/MRCA administrative and judicial review frameworks, and the SOP does not alter those procedures.

12. Evidence thresholds for special facts. Factors such as “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” (s 9(24)) or “severe level of disability” (s 9(14)) require qualitative assessments that decision makers may interpret differently. Practitioners should not assume a single form of proof is sufficient and should plan for expert evidence.

These are concrete interpretive and practical pitfalls created by the SOP’s structure. They produce litigation and evidentiary risk where timing, definitional gaps, or the presence of multiple partial factors raise disputes about whether the s 9 and s 10 conditions have been satisfied.

Compliance in this context means assembling and presenting evidence so that a decision maker applying ss 120B VEA or 339 MRCA will properly treat the SOP’s factors. The SOP sets out precise factual predicates and temporal windows; advisers should tailor evidence collection to meet those predicates.

1. Establish the date of clinical onset. Because many factors are measured relative to “clinical onset”, obtaining a clear medical chronology is the first step. Secure contemporaneous clinical notes, GP records, emergency department attendances, psychiatric assessments, hospital discharge summaries, coronial reports (where a death occurred), and any specialist reports that identify onset.

2. For clinically significant mental disorders (s 9(1)), obtain diagnostic statements and severity assessments. A clinician should state the diagnosis at clinical onset, the rationale, and whether the disorder was of a severity that warranted ongoing management even if treatment was not actually provided (Schedule 1 definition). Where treatment exists, include prescriptions, psychotherapy records, and inpatient/outpatient records.

3. Document service‑relation. Section 10 requires that a factor be related to the person’s relevant service. Collect service records, deployment records, separation documentation, commanders’ reports, unit assessments, and any contemporaneous incident reports that tie the qualifying factor to relevant service activities. For factors that may arise after separation, document how the service experience gave rise to the factor (for example, transition issues).

4. Prove timing for time‑limited factors. For each factor that has a look‑back window, provide records that establish the event within the stated period:

   • medication lists and pharmacy dispensing records for the 14 day window for specified medicines (s 9(18));
   • mefloquine prescription/dispensing within 3 months (s 9(19));
   • toxicology or witness testimony for MDPV or 25I‑NBOMe within 12 hours (s 9(20));
   • bariatric surgical records for the 10 year window (s 9(22));
   • concussion and TBI records for the 5 year and pre‑onset periods (ss 9(21) and 9(18));
   • persistent pain documentation establishing severity and duration (at least 6 months) (s 9(16));
   • family history events with dates and corroborating records for parental/sibling deaths or attempts (ss 9(6)-(9)).

5. For stressor categories, map the event to the Schedule 1 definitions. For category 1A and 1B stressors (ss 9(2)-(3) and Schedule 1), provide incident reports, witness statements (who meets the SOP “witness” definition), military investigation reports, or medical records that show the person directly experienced or witnessed the listed severe traumatic events. For category 2 stressors, document chronicity and the ongoing distress element described in Schedule 1, including workplace records, disability records, caregiver assessments, evidence of social isolation, or financial hardship records.

6. Corroborate family and relationship events. Where factors depend on events affecting a person with a close family bond or close personal relationship, collect corroborating statements, death certificates, coronial findings, school records, and other material proving the event and the relationship.

7. Address the Schedule 1 definitions that could be contested. For example, the SOP excludes media exposure as a basis for being a witness. If a claimant’s evidence relies on broadcast exposure, secure other forms of corroboration or explain why the “witness” requirement is satisfied.

8. When a factor refers to another SOP, consult that SOP. Section 11 mandates application in accordance with the other SOP’s terms. Identify any referenced SOPs for injuries such as TBI, epilepsy, or persistent pain and gather evidence specified by those instruments.

9. Provide expert medical evidence on causation and nexus. Because the SOP is a medical‑scientific statement, expert reports should explain how the claimant’s qualifying factor meets the SOP description, how it is temporally related to clinical onset, and how, in medical terms, the factor is connected to the claimant’s relevant service. Experts should address alternative explanations and quantify the degree of contribution where possible.

10. Anticipate challenges about “clinical onset” and the service nexus. Prepare alternative timelines and address likely counter‑arguments about the timing of onset or the causal relation to service. Where the factor is pre‑existing or predates service, consider whether s 10(2) or other provisions affect applicability.

11. Preserve documentary evidence for short windows. Short exposure windows for some medicines and substances mean rapidly assembling pharmacy and toxicology data is critical. Include admission notes from emergency departments or coronial toxicology where relevant.

12. Check amendment and repeal timing. Use the compilation endnotes and the Register to confirm which SOP version applied to a given claim date, especially for events around May-September 2025 when this SOP was made and amended.

13. Consider procedural remedies where the SOP is misapplied. If a decision maker departs from the SOP without adequate medical rationale, use the internal review and administrative law remedies available under the VEA/MRCA framework and general administrative law principles. The SOP itself does not create appeal rights.

14. Record witness evidence consistent with the SOP’s witness definition. For any claimant testimony that depends on witnessing an event, ensure the witness can establish they experienced the incident at the time it occurred and can provide direct evidence, not merely reference media coverage.

This compliance checklist is guided by the SOP’s text. Evidence collection must be precisely aligned with the SOP’s definitions and timing requirements set out in s 9 and Schedule 1. Failure to establish the timing, clinical onset, or service nexus for even one qualifying factor risks rejection of the causal link on the balance of probabilities.