Brown v Australian Capital Territory - [2020] ACTSC 70

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Brown v Australian Capital Territory
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 70
Hearing Dates:	17–18 February 2020
DecisionDate:	3 April 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Verdict for the defendants. See [125]–[129].
Catchwords:	HUMAN RIGHTS – UNLAWFUL DETENTION – Offences near the border of New South Wales and Jervis Bay Territory – Whether ACT court lacked jurisdiction – Whether detention “unlawful” within the meaning of the Human Rights Act – Whether s 18(7) creates a freestanding cause of action – Relationship between s 18(7) and tort of false imprisonment TORTS – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – Whether plaintiff falsely imprisoned – Compensation and damages
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 56A Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953) (European Convention on Human Rights) art 5 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 30, 34, 437 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 16, 17(1), 19, 104 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) s 18(1), 18(2), 18(7), 23(1), 40, 40B, 40C Immigration Act 1971 (UK) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 9 Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915 (Cth) ss 4A, 4D Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 18A, 25, 26, 42, 47, 70, 74
Cases Cited:	Carnegie v State of Victoria (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Full Court, 14 September 1989) Eastman v Australian Capital Territory [2019] ACTSC 280 Lewis v Australian Capital Territory [2018] ACTSC 19; 329 FLR 267 Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12; [2012] 1 AC 245 Monaghan v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 352; 315 FLR 305 Morro v Australian Capital Territory [2009] ACTSC 118; 4 ACTLR 78 Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597 R (on the Application of Jalloh (formerly Jollah)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 4 Strano v Australian Capital Territory [2016] ACTSC 4; 11 ACTLR 134 Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1
Parties:	Daniel Wayne Brown (Plaintiff) Australian Capital Territory (First Defendant) Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel P Tierney with J Lawrence (Plaintiff) A Hochroth (First and Second Defendant)
Solicitors Tony Cullinan Lawyers (Plaintiff) ACT Government Solicitor (First and Second Defendant)
File Number(s):	SC 109 of 2019

Murrell CJ

Overview

The plaintiff claims compensation for unlawful detention in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Alternatively, he claims damages for false imprisonment.

The claim is brought against the ACT as the body responsible for the administration of justice through its courts and for the detention and custody of persons charged with criminal offences in the ACT and the Jervis Bay Territory (JBT), a Commonwealth territory. The second defendant (the ACT Magistrates Court) made the orders that caused the plaintiff to be detained and issued associated warrants.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brown v Australian Capital Territory and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] ACTSC 70
Decision Date: 3 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Brown v Australian Capital Territory, the plaintiff, who was detained near the border of New South Wales and the Jervis Bay Territory, brought a claim against the defendants, who were the Australian Capital Territory, for unlawful detention under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The plaintiff contended that his detention was unlawful and that the Australian Capital Territory was liable for damages under section 18(7) of the Act.

The court had to determine several issues. Firstly, whether the Australian Capital Territory court had jurisdiction over the matter, given that the detention occurred near the border. Secondly, whether the detention was unlawful within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. Thirdly, whether section 18(7) of the Act created a freestanding cause of action, and lastly, the relationship between section 18(7) and the common law tort of false imprisonment.

The court held that the Australian Capital Territory court did have jurisdiction over the matter, as the plaintiff's detention occurred within the territory. The court further found that the detention was not unlawful within the meaning of the Human Rights Act, as it was authorised by law. The court also ruled that section 18(7) of the Act did not create a freestanding cause of action but was a remedy for a breach of a right under the Act. The court held that the tort of false imprisonment was not relevant to the case as the detention was authorised by law.

The court found in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The court held that the Australian Capital Territory was not liable for damages under section 18(7) of the Act, as the detention was lawful. The court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing by the action and that the defendants be awarded their costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict for the defendants. See [125]–[129].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.