NT Police officers not capable of using lethal force ‘unfit for duty’, court rules in Geoff Bahnert case

The Inability Appeal Board found officers’ duties included being ‘mentally and physically ready and capable’ of the application of lethal force, even when assigned to ‘non-operational duties’.

Former Senior Sergeant Geoff Bahnert pictured with wife Sue Moore outside Parliament House as a Labor candidate for Blain in the 2014 byelection.

NT Police officers who are unfit to use lethal force can be forcibly retired under the Police Administration Act, despite still remaining capable of performing other duties, three of the Territory’s top judges have ruled.

Long-serving former Senior Sergeant Geoff Bahnert sued the force after he was ordered to retire in 2022 following long periods of absence due to chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr Bahnert was later certified to resume full time, non-operational duties but the top brass disputed that opinion and a further review by then Assistant Commissioner Nick Anticich determined he had been deemed unfit to return to duty.

Mr Bahnert unsuccessfully appealed the decision and subsequently sought a judicial review in the Supreme Court where questions of law were then referred to the Full Court, which handed down its ruling on Friday.

In its earlier decision, the Inability Appeal Board found “the duties the member is required to perform” included being “mentally and physically ready and capable of performing

all of their statutory functions, up to and including the application of lethal force”.

“The oath sworn by police officers does not differentiate by rank or position and nor does the PAA as it applies broad immunity and protection from civil and criminal liability for acts done and omitted to be done by members in good faith in the performance of their functions,” it said.

Geoff Bahnert’s judicial review of his forced retirement from NT Police remains ongoing.

“Likewise, the PAA does not distinguish between operational (and) non-operational duties.

“In these circumstances, the board considers that the PAA requires that police officers will at all times be fit to discharge, suited to perform and capable of efficiently performing all of the necessary statutory duties, as opposed to involving a question of whether a member may be fit to discharge some form of modified or restricted duties that may necessarily exclude the inherent requirements of the job.”

In remitting the judicial review back to the trial judge, the Full Court held the commissioner “cannot be precluded from forming an opinion” on the basis a member is unfit to perform the full range of duties.

“Whether that opinion is formed on reasonable grounds will depend upon the circumstances of the particular matter, including the nature and duration of the incapacity in question,” Chief Justice Michael Grant and Justices Judith Kelly and Peter Barr found.

“The Return to Work Act does not operate to compel the commissioner to retain a person as a sworn member of the police force where to do so would be inconsistent with the operational requirements of the organisation and incompatible with the discharge of the core functions of a police officer.”

Originally published as NT Police officers not capable of using lethal force ‘unfit for duty’, court rules in Geoff Bahnert case