Charara v State of New South Wales

[2009] NSWCA 376

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION:	Charara v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 376
HEARING DATE(S):	18 November 2009
JUDGMENT OF:	McColl JA at 1, 6; Handley AJA at 5
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	18 November 2009
DECISION:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – no question of principle
CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
CASES CITED:	A v New South Wales [2007] HCA 10; (2007) 230 CLR 500 Charara v New South Wales [2009] NSWDC 263 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22, (2003) 214 CLR 118
PARTIES:	Jamal Charara - Applicant State of New South Wales - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40308 of 2009
COUNSEL:	Applicant in person T Ryan - Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant in person Makinson & d'Apice Lawyers - Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 24 of 2009
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Hungerford ADCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	21 August 2009

- 1 -

CA 40308/09

McCOLL JA
HANDLEY AJA

Wednesday 18 November 2009

Jamal Charara v State of New South Wales

Judgment ex tempore

1 McCOLL JA: This is an application for leave to appeal by Jamal Charara from a decision of Hungerford ADCJ in which his Honour dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages against the State of New South Wales in respect of allegations of wrongful arrest, assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution: Charara v New South Wales [2009] NSWDC 263.

2 There was a substantial factual controversy at the trial as to the circumstances in which the applicant came to be arrested. The primary judge did not accept the version of those events given by the applicant and his de facto partner. He fully accepted the version of the events given by the two police officers who effected the arrest. In those circumstances his Honour concluded that the police were entitled to arrest the applicant. He also rejected the applicant’s assertion that the defendant had either acted maliciously or without reasonable and probable cause, those being the two elements of the tort of malicious prosecution which were in issue: A v New South Wales [2007] HCA 10; (2007) 230 CLR 500 (at [1]).

3 His Honour’s decision was based on findings of fact which in order to be overturned on appeal would require the applicant to demonstrate incontrovertible evidence to the contrary in terms of Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22, (2003) 214 CLR 118. In my view the applicant has not demonstrated any aspect of his Honour’s judgment which would attract such review of his Honour’s findings. The fact, if it be the case, that there were alternative means which the police could have employed in the circumstances to seize equipment or to issue a warning, does not in my view undermine his Honour’s finding that the police were in the circumstances entitled to arrest the applicant.

4 I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal with costs.

5 HANDLEY AJA: I agree.

: Those are the orders of the court.

**********