In a case brought by two ex-police officers against the Police, the High Court has spelt out a clear warning to employers who fail provide a safe system of work by taking reasonable steps to guard against work overload. The Police were ordered to pay the two ex-Constables, Rex Hallinan and Geoff Benge, almost half a million dollars in damages.

In 1993, Constable Hallinan voluntarily disengaged from the Police after becoming medically unfit. He claimed that the reason he had become medically unfit was because the Police had failed to take reasonable steps to guard against work overload that was likely to endanger his health.

From 1985 until his disengagement, he was sole charge of the Lincoln Police Station near Christchurch. He lived with his family in a Police house next to the Station. While stationed there, the population in Lincoln grew enormously, and he found himself extremely pressed to police the area. He frequently worked 18 to 20 hours continuously, and was called out two or three times per night to attend incidents.

Living next to the Police Station meant that he was continually subject to telephone interruptions and house calls at all hours of the day and night, and that he could rarely escape from his job. As a result of the overtime he worked, he accumulated an enormous amount of time off in lieu ("TOIL"), but was unable to take it due to his work commitments. Hallinan complained to the Police about the situation on numerous occasions, but very little was done to reduce his workload and the pressure on him.

In 1993, Hallinan had a mental break down and voluntarily disengaged from the Police. His psychologist said that this was not a sudden event, and that he had been on the brink of a mental breakdown on four or five other occasions in the previous five years. After his disengagement, the Police refused to pay him for all of the overtime he had accumulated on the grounds that he was owed time off on pay, and not money.

The High Court held that, in the circumstances, Hallinan's mental breakdown was hardly surprising, and that the Police had failed to take reasonable steps to guard against him becoming over worked. It awarded him $415,872.72 damages for loss of future earnings, pain and suffering, and unpaid overtime.

Constable Benge was stationed at an under resourced Police Station at Otaki. Like Hallinan, he too worked long hours and accumulated an enormous amount of TOIL.

In 1992, Benge was required to give evidence in the Levin Court on his rostered day off. En route, he was alerted to an armed bank robbery. While arresting the offender, he seriously injured his shoulder. He was seen by his doctor and placed on light duties.

Despite his injury, he had no option but to assist in frontline police work because of a lack of staff and resources at Otaki.

In December 1992, the Station received a call involving an armed abduction. Benge responded to the call as back up for the two duty constables. While apprehending the offender, he again experienced pain in his shoulder which later required surgery.

Benge's doctor was unable to assure the Police that Benge would be fit enough to resume normal police work, preferring instead to reassess the situation after he had recovered from his operation. The Police were not prepared to wait and compulsorily retired Benge on the grounds of medical unfitness. Like Hallinan, they also refused to pay him for his outstanding overtime.

Benge appealed against his compulsory disengagement. Under the Police Act he was required to be kept on pay until his appeal was determined. However, the Police did not have a process in place for dealing with such appeals, and despite volumes of lawyers letters about the matter, his appeal was never heard.

The High Court rejected Benge's claim that his loss of employment was a direct result of a lack of staffing and resources at Otaki in that he was forced to do front line policing work while injured. This was because the medical evidence attributed his shoulder injury to the first incident, and there was no evidence that the second incident had exacerbated the injury causing further damage.

The High Court did however find that Benge was not properly retired as the Police had misapplied the compulsory retirement provisions of the Police Act. Had it applied the provisions correctly, then Benge would not have lost his job. The High Court awarded him $65,260.91 damages for loss of earnings, pain and suffering (particularly given the Police's failure to provide for his appeal), and unpaid overtime.

This is the third occasion in recent times that the Courts have awarded hefty damages against the Police for failing to provide its employees with a safe system for work. The Police face an even larger claim early next year when the High Court hears the cases of a number of ex-undercover police officers. The officers all claim that they lost their jobs and careers after becoming addicted to alcohol and drugs and suffering psychological damage in the police undercover program.