Legal Research
Cases
Annan v Harris

Annan v Harris

Case [2019] WADC 157 22 November 2019

Trespass

Misfeasance in Public Office

Malicious Prosecution

Compensatory Damages

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ANNAN -v- HARRIS [2019] WADC 157
CORAM:   QUAIL DCJ
HEARD:   16 - 19 SEPTEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   22 NOVEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 807 of 2018
BETWEEN:   RACHAEL ANNAN
First Plaintiff

JAMES ANNAN
Second Plaintiff

AND

CRAIG HARRIS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Torts - Trespass - Malicious procurement of search warrant - Misfeasance in public office - Plaintiffs sue police officer regarding investigation of complaints made to WA Police - Application of s 137(3) of the Police Act 1892 (WA) - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Investigations Act 2006 (WA), s 31, s 35, s 146, s 147
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 79C
Police Act 1892 (WA), s 137(3)
Police Force Regulations 1979 (WA), reg 605(1)(b)
Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA)

Result:

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	In person
Second Plaintiff	:	In person
Defendant	:	Mr J F Bennett

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
Second Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
Defendant	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

A v New South Wales [2007] HCA 10; (2007) 230 CLR 500
Beamish v The Queen [2005] WASCA 62
Beckett v New South Wales [2013] HCA 17; (2013) 248 CLR 432
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Cunningham v Traynor [2016] WADC 168
Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292
Farrington v Thomson [1959] VR 286
Gibbs v Rea [1998] AC 786
Googe v Spoljaric [2017] WADC 99
Halliday v Nevill [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1
Ives v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASC 178
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (2005) 222 CLR 612
Neilson v City of Swan [2006] WASCA 94
Northern Territory of Australia v Mengel [1995] HCA 65; (1995) 185 CLR 307
Noye v Robbins [2010] WASCA 83
Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5; (1991) 171 CLR 635
Roman v Commonwealth of Australia (2004) 16 NTLR 80; [2004] NTSC 9
Ruddock v Taylor [2005] HCA 48; (2005) 222 CLR 612
The State of Western Australia v Cunningham [No 3] [2018] WASCA 207
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1
Young v State of New South Wales; Young v Young (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 330

QUAIL DCJ:

Introduction

Ms and Mr Annan (the Annans), two well educated professionals living in Mount Claremont sue Senior Constable (SC) Harris, a police officer attached at all relevant times to the Wembley Police Station, for trespassing on their property, malicious procurement of a search warrant and misfeasance in public office. For these alleged wrongs they seek damages in the amount of $850 as well as aggravated and exemplary damages.[1] The Annans explained that they have brought their action in the District Court:
Because we felt the importance – as you can see it's not necessarily just a monetary thing for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Annan v Harris

Details

AGLC: Annan v Harris [2019] WADC 157
Case: [2019] WADC 157
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in this matter, represented by Mr Annan and others, initiated legal action against the defendants, including the defendant Harris, a police officer, in relation to an investigation conducted by the Western Australia Police. The plaintiffs sought damages for trespass and misfeasance in public office, claiming that the police officer maliciously procured a search warrant and abused the legal process. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the police officer's actions constituted malicious procurement of a search warrant and whether the plaintiffs could claim damages for trespass and misfeasance in public office. The court also had to consider the applicability of section 137(3) of the Police Act 1892 (WA) in relation to the immunity of police officers from civil liability.

In its judgement, the court examined the specific circumstances of the case to assess whether the police officer acted maliciously in procuring the search warrant. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between genuine and malicious conduct in the procurement of a search warrant. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the police officer acted with malice. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for damages for trespass and misfeasance in public office. The court also concluded that section 137(3) of the Police Act 1892 (WA) provided immunity to the police officer from civil liability in this case.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, and the defendants were exonerated from liability. The court's judgement hinged on the lack of evidence demonstrating the police officer's malicious intent in procuring the search warrant. The court's decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between genuine and malicious conduct when investigating complaints made to the police.

Orders