CITATION: Charara v New South Wales [2009] NSWDC 263 HEARING DATE(S): 2, 3, 6 and 7 July 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
21 August 2009JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Hungerford ADCJ DECISION: (1) Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff on the action.
(2) Plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs of the action up to 25 June 2009 on the ordinary basis and thereafter from 26 June 2009 on an indemnity basis.
(3) Direct that the exhibits remain with the file to be returned after 28 days on application to the Registrar.
(4) Note the order made on 2 July 2009 that the statement of claim against the second and third defendants be dismissedCATCHWORDS: TORTS - Police tort claims - Vicarious liability of the Crown (State of New South Wales) - Wrongful arrest, assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution - Arising out of charges for offences of failure to comply with a noise abatement direction, assault police and resist arrest - Plaintiff convicted by Magistrate at first instance - On appeal convictions quashed - Elements necessary for each count - Onus to establish rests on plaintiff - Damages LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 64
Crimes Act 1900, ss 58, 59(1) and 61
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, ss 99, 114 and 230
Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983, ss 8(1), 9B(2) and (3) and 9D(1)(b)
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 222, 224, 276(a), 277(1)(a), 277(4) and 283
Protection of the Environment Operations (Penalty Notices) Regulation 2004, Sch 1CASES CITED: A v New South Wales [2007] HCA 10; (2007) 230 CLR 500
Attorney-General for State of New South Wales v Bar-Mordecai [2009] NSWSC 396
Director of Public Prosecutions v Carr (2002) 127 A Crim R 151
Fleet v District Court of New South Wales [1999] NSWCA 363
Hathaway v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 116
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Wilson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] NSWSC 935PARTIES: Jamal Charara - Plaintiff
State of New South Wales - First Defendant
Edward John Taylor - Second Defendant
Allan Duque - Third DefendantFILE NUMBER(S): 24 of 2009 COUNSEL: Mr J Charara (in person) for Plaintiff
Mr TJ Ryan for First Defendant
No appearance for Second and Third DefendantsSOLICITORS: Makinson & d'Apice Lawyers for First Defendant
JUDGMENT
1 In this action the plaintiff, Jamal Charara, sought damages against the State of New South Wales for its vicarious liability in relation to alleged wrongful acts committed by two members of the New South Wales Police Force against him during the early morning hours of Thursday, 19 February 2004. The causes of action pleaded were wrongful arrest, assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
Factual Context
2 The circumstances in which the claims arose occurred in and outside the garage used by the plaintiff at his then residence in Unit 9 at 5-9 Trafalgar Street, Brighton-le-Sands where he lived with Rona Hamieh, his de facto wife. The…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Charara v New South Wales 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWDC 263
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the onus of establishing the torts rested on the plaintiff. It found that the police had acted within the scope of their duties and were justified in their actions, thus absolving the State of New South Wales of vicarious liability. The court determined that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proof for any of the torts claimed, and no damages were payable. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered that he pay the State's costs of the action. The exhibits were to remain with the file for potential future use, and the claims against the other defendants were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff on the action.
(2) Plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs of the action up to 25 June 2009 on the ordinary basis and thereafter from 26 June 2009 on an indemnity basis.
(3) Direct that the exhibits remain with the file to be returned after 28 days on application to the Registrar.
(4) Note the order made on 2 July 2009 that the statement of claim against the second and third defendants be dismissed
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.