{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013852813852813853, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008658008658008658, 'mean_word_length': 4.958762886597938, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mental Harm Claims Against Emergency Services Organisations: AnImportant Australian Development

The decision of Garling J in Benic v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1039 is a significant adverse finding for a plaintiff in the context of a police officer alleging afailure to provide him with a safe place of work. The decision was made in response to a claim for negligence arising out of alleged provision of an inadequate response to his complaints of threats to his life in the course of his employment. The fact that he was unable to prove either the requisite breach of a duty of care or causation between a breach and his psychiatric harm has the potential to be an important development in this form of psychiatric injury litigation in Australia. In particular, the court's reliance upon the National Clinical Practice Guideline No 26 – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: The Management of PTSD in Adults and Children in Primary and Secondary Care (‘the NICE guidelines’) – in order to evaluate the likely consequence of early intervention after a traumatic experience has the potential to have important forensic ramifications for other cases.