A former police officer who was exposed to the severed body parts of a murder victim has been awarded more than $750,000 by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that her insurers should not have declined her claim for total and permanent disability five years ago and ordered she be paid $752,718 plus interest.
In 2009, Rebecca Sandstrom was sent to Pheasants Nest, south-west of Sydney, where a woman's body had been discovered in bushland.
Ms Sandstrom, a young police officer stationed at Bankstown, had to guard the body parts, which were placed in plastic evidence bags and put in the back of a patrol car.
"The court accepts that she can in her mind still on occasions see this woman's bagged head on the back seat of the vehicle," Justice Michael Slattery said in his judgement.
"She says even now in her own car she will turn back to look for something and she sees the murdered woman's head on the back seat of her car."
It was one of several grisly assignments which led to her suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
She also visited several confronting crime scenes involving self-harm, one which left her covered in the victim's blood after trying to save his life.
Another involved a woman who had been so badly beaten by her husband she had "extensive bruising over every part of her body".
In 2010, she attended the scene where her colleague, William Crews, had been fatally shot by another officer during the execution of a search warrant at Bankstown.
Following the shooting, she attended Liverpool Hospital where she saw his "grievously wounded and disfigured body".
The same day she was placed on sick leave and never returned to active duty, ending her five-year police career.
NSW Police Association president Tony King said trauma was a significant danger for officers.
"The main point from the court case this week is the ripple effects from the traumatic events that police and other first responders encounter are not understood well enough and can be long-lasting," Mr King said.
"The conduct of the insurers in this lengthy case, in fighting what has been found to be a reasonable claim, is regrettable."
