Legal Research
Cases
Brown v Lizars

Brown v Lizars

Case [1905] HCA 24 15 August 1905

Appeal

Civil Procedure

Negligence & Tort

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

2 CLR 837

RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF County Court Act 1890 (Victoria), (No. 1078), secs. 31, 82, 88, 89, 93, 96, 133-

Action in County Court tried by jury- Verdict of jury-Judgment-Miadirection - - Application for new trial-Appeal-False - imprisonment- Arrest by constable without warrant on suspicion of felony in foreign Country.

Where, on a trial in the County Court of Victoria by a jury, the jury answer certain specific questions put to them by the Judge, but give no general verdict, and the Judge enters judgment for one of the parties as though on those answers that party were entitled to a verdict and judgment, whereas in law the other party is entitled to judgment notwithstanding those answers, that other party is, under sec. 96 of the County Court Act 1890 (Victoria), entitled to apply to the County Court Judge for a new trial, although he may also be entitled, under sec. 133 of that Act, to appeal direct to the Supreme Court from the judgment.

Judgment of Full Court, Brown v. Lizars, (1905) V.L.R., 165; 26 A.L.T., 159, reversed.

A reasonable suspicion that a person has, in a foreign country or in another part of the British Dominions, committed an offence which, if committed in Victoria, would be a felony, does not justify a constable in arresting such person in Victoria without a warrant, and is therefore not a defence to an action by such person against the constable for false imprisonment.

The only existing powers to arrest, or detain, or surrender to a foreign country or to another part of the British Dominions, a person suspected of having there committed a criminal offence, are such as are conferred by Statute.

APPEAL by special leave from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

An action was brought in the County Court at Melbourne by John Thomas Brown against Daniel Lizars, a constable of police, to recover £99 damages for malicious arrest and false imprison- ment. The cause of action for malicious arrest was abandoned at the trial. The action was tried by Judge Gaunt and a jury.

2 CLR 838

The defences stated were The defendant denies the assault and

denies the false imprisonment. The defendant was at all material times a police constable. The defendant arrested the plaintiff in the execution of his duty as he had reasonable grounds to suspect that he (the plaintiff) had committed a felony. The defendant denies malice and alleges no want of reasonable and probable

Evidence was given that the plaintiff had told one Foote that he (the plaintiff) did a moonlight flit" from South Africa, where he had "nicked" £400; that Foote told this to the defendant, who, having searched in the Victorian Police Gazette, found there a report of an embezzlement of £400 19s. 9d. at Durban, Natal, and a photograph of the supposed criminal and that the defendant thereupon arrested the plaintiff on the charge of that embezzlement and brought him before a magistrate, who…

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 Brown v Lizars

Details

AGLC: Brown v Lizars [1905] HCA 24
Case: [1905] HCA 24
Decision Date: 15 August 1905

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Brown v Lizars* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a jury verdict and judgment in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute involved an action for false imprisonment brought by the plaintiff, Lizars, against the defendant, Brown, who was a constable. The plaintiff's claim arose from his arrest by the defendant without a warrant, based on a suspicion of felony committed in a foreign country.

The High Court was required to determine whether the County Court judge had misdirected the jury, leading to an application for a new trial. Specifically, the central legal issue was the validity of an arrest made by a constable without a warrant, where the suspected felony had occurred outside of Victoria.

The Court considered the provisions of the *County Court Act 1890* (Victoria), particularly sections relating to the powers of constables and the grounds for arrest. The reasoning focused on the common law principles governing arrest without warrant, and whether these principles extended to arrests based on suspicion of offences committed in foreign jurisdictions. The Court ultimately found that the arrest was unlawful, as the constable lacked the necessary authority to arrest without a warrant for a felony committed abroad.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the County Court and ordering a new trial.

Orders