The differences between Standards of Proof used by the
Defence Abuse Response Taskforce and Defence
Before the Taskforce can consider what outcomes are available to individual complainants, the
Taskforce must be satisfied that the person plausibly suffered abuse or had their allegation of abuse
mismanaged by Defence. Once a matter is referred by the Taskforce to Defence for Administrative or
Disciplinary Action, depending on the nature of the complaint, whether it relates to military or civilian
personnel and how it is handled, Defence is legally obliged to be satisfied on the criminal standard of
proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ or the civil burden of the ‘balance of probabilities’ that abuse or
mismanagement occurred.
DEFENCE ABUSE RESPONSE TASKFORCE
(TASKFORCE)
DEFENCE
Summary
The Taskforce was established by the Australian
Government to respond to allegations of
abuse within Defence. “Abuse” may or may not
result in psychological or physical injury. There
must be a sufficient connection between the abuse
and Defence.
In order for complainants to be able to access
one or more of the outcomes offered by the
Taskforce, the Taskforce must be satisfied on the
basis of the threshold test of ‘plausibility’ that a
person suffered abuse or mismanagement.
To meet the threshold test of plausibility, the
Taskforce must be satisfied that the claim of abuse
and/or mismanagement has the appearance of
reasonableness.
Allegations of abuse or misconduct may be
handled by Defence in a number of ways,
including:

The discipline and military justice system

Adverse administrative action

Administrative inquiries

Via a redress or complaint mechanism,
which may include Defence-specific
mechanisms or broader discretionary
mechanisms

Since January 2014, as an investigation
under the Public Interest Disclosure Act
2013.
DEFENCE ABUSE RESPONSE TASKFORCE
(TASKFORCE)
DEFENCE
Legislation
The appointment of the Taskforce Chair and
Taskforce Terms of Reference was made by
Legislative Instrument and executed by the
Attorney-General on 3 December 2012 and the
Minister for Defence on 16 December 2012.
The Taskforce uses a number of different pieces
of state and Commonwealth legislation in
delivering outcomes to complainants. Its
‘decision-making powers’ do not derive from any
specific legislation.
Defence is governed by various pieces of legislation
and law, including:

Defence Act 1903

Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (DFDA)

Public Service Act 1999 (for civilian Defence
employees)

Additional Defence regulations that can be
applied in particular cases.
Defence is also bound by criminal law, common
law and broader Australian laws, such as privacy
legislation, work health and safety legislation, etc.
Depending on the nature of the complaint,
whether it relates to military or civilian personnel
and how it is handled, Defence will need to be
satisfied on the criminal standard of proof of
‘beyond reasonable doubt’ or the civil burden of
the ‘balance of probabilities’ that abuse or
mismanagement occurred.
The DFDA contains certain time limits or limitation
periods which prevent Defence from lawfully
charging a person, even when it is determined that
alleged conduct may constitute a service offence.
There are stricter limitations that apply to former
members of Defence.
Eligibility
A person is eligible to have their complaint
considered by the Taskforce if:
(a)
they allege they have suffered one
or more instances of abuse in Defence
(b)
they have lodged their complaint about
alleged abuse with DLA Piper or the
Any current serving member of Defence can
make a complaint or report abuse or
mismanagement to Defence (as can others).
Defence will then determine how the complaint
should be dealt with either within the military
justice system or administrative review
DEFENCE ABUSE RESPONSE TASKFORCE
(TASKFORCE)
Taskforce by 31 May 2013
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
DEFENCE
mechanisms.
they were, at the time of the alleged
abuse, an employee in Defence
Defence’s jurisdiction will operate variably
depending on whether the person(s) responsible
the person who effected or initiated the
for the alleged abuse are currently serving /
alleged abuse was an employee in
employed. Some mechanisms can proceed even
Defence
where the persons allegedly involved are no
there is a sufficient connection between the longer with Defence.
alleged abuse and the person’s
employment in Defence, and
the alleged abuse occurred before
11 April 2011.
Test
The Taskforce test of ‘plausibility’ means that the
allegation should have an appearance of
reasonableness. Assessment of plausibility is
based on all information available and may
include, but is not limited to:
 medical records;
 any material referred to in other review
reports and findings;
 Defence employment and medical records;
 DVA and/or Comcare records (where there
has been a worker’s compensation claim);
 a statement from a third party (for example,
a witness, colleague or family member);
and/or
 similar allegations of abuse which have been
brought to the attention of the Taskforce,
which occurred in the same Defence
institution.
The Taskforce is not required to be satisfied on the
higher standard of proof in criminal matters of
‘beyond reasonable doubt,’ nor are they required to
be satisfied on the civil standard of the ‘balance of
probabilities’ that a person suffered abuse or
Under both the military justice system and
administrative mechanisms, Defence requires a
higher standard of proof than the test of
plausibility which is applied by the Taskforce.
Typically it will either require abuse to be proven
‘beyond reasonable doubt’ or on the ‘balance of
probabilities’.
The standard of proof in criminal and DFDA
matters is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This means
that the prosecution must bring evidence of such a
standard that there would be no reasonable doubt
in the mind of a reasonable person that the
accused is guilty.
In civil matters, the required standard of proof is
known as the ‘balance of probabilities’. In simple
terms, the balance of probabilities will be met if a
court or tribunal can be satisfied that it is ‘more
likely than not’ that a particular fact occurred.
DEFENCE ABUSE RESPONSE TASKFORCE
(TASKFORCE)
mismanagement.
DEFENCE
As the test of plausibility is lower than that of
‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘balance of
probabilities’, it is possible the Taskforce may be
satisfied that a complaint is plausible, even if it
may not meet the higher criminal or civil law
tests.
Outcomes/Services provided
Outcomes available through the Taskforce
include:
 Referral to counselling under the
nationwide Defence Abuse Counselling
Scheme.
 Referral of appropriate matters to police
or military justice authorities for
assessment for investigation and
potentially prosecution.
 Referral to the Chief of the Defence Force
for administrative and/ or disciplinary
action.
 Restorative engagement in a conference
with a senior Defence officer under the
Defence Abuse Restorative Engagement
Program.
 A Reparation Payment of up to $50 000
under the Defence Abuse Reparation
Scheme.
Outcomes available through Defence include:

Referral to ADFIS for assessment and
possible investigation and action under the
DFDA. When an offence is successfully
investigated and prosecuted, a person
convicted may be subject to similar
penalties as they would be under the
civilian criminal system, including
imprisonment.

Referral for possible assessment and
administrative action. Possible outcomes of
administrative action include counselling,
formal warnings, censures, removal from
command, and discharge from service.

Referral to civilian police authorities in
appropriate cases.

In relation to public service Code of
Conduct matters, sanctions may include
counselling, downgrading of classification or
termination of employment.