Australian Capital Territory v Crowley

The Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a decision of Penfold J concerning the shooting of the plaintiff, Mr Crowley, by a police officer. Mr Crowley, who was mentally ill and wielding a kendo stick as a weapon in public, conceded that the police officer was not negligent in the discharge of the weapon. The central dispute revolved around whether the Australian Capital Territory, as the employer of the police officer, owed a duty of care to Mr Crowley and, if so, whether that duty had been breached.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, it had to consider the circumstances in which an appellate court may review findings of fact made by a trial judge, particularly where the first instance decision was delivered two years after the conclusion of the trial. Second, the Court had to examine the scope and application of police immunity from civil liability, and whether, in this specific context, a duty of care was owed by the police to Mr Crowley, and if so, whether that duty was breached.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders made by Justice Penfold. The Court found that the trial judge had erred in her findings of fact and in her application of the law regarding the duty of care owed by police officers. The Court applied principles concerning the limited scope of police immunity and the specific circumstances in which a duty of care might arise, concluding that no such duty was breached in this instance. Consequently, judgment was entered in favour of the Australian Capital Territory, and Mr Crowley was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs of the trial, with the Australian Capital Territory also to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.