Victoria Police officer alleges ‘legacy of bullying’, false arrest

A former senior constable can proceed with a claim against Victoria Police over an alleged psychiatric injury arising from disciplinary hearings and an allegedly baseless arrest.

The County Court of Victoria’s Judge Julie Clayton granted George Stefanescu leave to commence common law proceedings against Victoria Police for the pain and suffering he allegedly experienced after he was accused of creating a false document.

Stefanescu alleged he became the target of bullying, discrimination, harassment, and unreasonable management action from 2014 and that 13 of his 16 superiors during this period “continued this legacy of bullying behaviour”.

However, Judge Clayton was not satisfied the alleged psychiatric injury had impacted his ability to work, meaning his claim for loss of earning capacity will not proceed.

Stefanescu was arrested in December 2018 and went on to allegedly suffer false imprisonment, assault by being physically restrained by a Victoria Police officer, and denied a phone call.

According to his submissions, the magistrate tossed the matter in December 2019 on the grounds that the investigation began under a “wholly flawed process”, and the prosecution’s conduct in arresting him was “at best petty and at worst malicious”.

An unrelated investigation connected to an earlier execution of a search warrant led to further charges of using or disclosing information, but the prosecution was withdrawn in 2020.

A third attempt in October 2022 to have criminal charges stick to Stefanescu was withdrawn in 2023, the former officer said.

Stefanescu told the County Court the initial charges arose from a work-approved handgun target shooting club, at which he signed an attendance sheet but did not use a gun. His job required that he maintain a handgun license.

Stefanescu alleged he sent an email to the club requesting it delete or disregard his attendance because it would have shown he participated in shooting when he did not. Some months later, he claimed the club reported these events to police.

The purported false document was the email he sent to the club the day after he attended, according to Stefanescu.

The psychiatric injury Stefanescu alleged he suffered as a result is tied up in ongoing common law proceedings he filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria, in which he claimed intentional torts of assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

To allow the claim to proceed, Judge Clayton first had to determine whether the alleged injuries arising from intentional torts occurred in the course of employment and that the employment was a “material factor” in causing the injuries.

Judge Clayton was not determining liability or awarding damages, stressing in her written reasons the decision was solely on whether it arose out of the nature of employment.

“For the limited purpose of this gateway provision, I am satisfied that the intentional tort, the subject of the Supreme Court proceeding, at least until the plaintiff resigned in April 2021, were in the course of, or by reason of the employment.

“As a result of my finding, the consequences of those events can be considered for the purpose of determining whether Stefanescu has a serious injury,” Judge Clayton said.

Judge Clayton was satisfied the psychiatric injury arose out of the nature of Stefanescu’s work as a police officer, and the injury was “significantly aggravated by the intentional torts and the consequences of those torts”, including the instigation of disciplinary hearings and his subsequent suspension.

As for work capacity, Judge Clayton found Stefanescu did not give full and frank evidence, was at times evasive, and was designed to bolster his case and exaggerate his incapacity.

For example, Stefanescu’s submission that he set up multiple companies on the advice of his accountant did not line up with the 20 years he worked in the finance sector.

The court was also shown surveillance footage from an airport that showed Stefanescu typing, looking through images, inserting images into a document, and switching screens.

This contradicted Stefanescu’s submission that he could only work on a computer on some days for five minutes, and on others for half an hour. Asked what he did on his computer, Stefanescu said he did no more than check his email.

While satisfied that Stefanescu is incapacitated for work as a police officer and any other role in Victoria Police, and that there were some roles, like public speaking, he cannot do, Judge Clayton was unable to be satisfied as to the reliability of evidence generally about his capacity to engage in business activities.

Stefanescu was unable to establish a loss of earning capacity.

Citation: Stefanescu v Victoria Police [2026] VCC 1472.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.