Coleman v. Watson & Shaw & Anor - [2007] QSC 343

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Coleman v Watson & Shaw & Anor [2007] QSC 343

PARTIES:
PATRICK JOHN COLEMAN
(Plaintiff)

v

SENIOR CONSTABLE MITCHELL DOUGLAS WATSON
(First Defendant)

CONSTABLE ASHLEY ROBERT SHAW
(Second Defendant)

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S: S344 of 2004

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Trial

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 20 November 2007

DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court at Townsville

HEARING DATE: 13 & 14 November 2007

JUDGES: Cullinane J

ORDER:
I give judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten per cent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400.

I give judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten per cent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400.

I give judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten percent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400.

I order that the first defendant, second defendant and third defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed, such costs to be limited to the costs which would have been recoverable had the plaintiff instituted the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court.

CATCHWORDS:
POLICE – ACTIONS FOR WRONGFUL ARREST, TRESPASS AND OTHER WRONGS – GENERALLY – LIABILITY OF CROWN AND ITS EMPLOYEES – where plaintiff was not allowed by police into a sitting of parliament - where first and second defendant admitted liability for wrongful arrest and wrongful imprisonment.

TORT – JOINT OR SEVERAL TORTFEASORS – GENERALLY.

DAMAGES – COMPENSATORY DAMAGES – whether plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for the conduct of the first and second defendant.

DAMAGES – EXEMPLARY AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – where plaintiff after being told he could not enter the public area to view a sitting of parliament approached the media attracted there attention and gave a short speech – where plaintiff invited the police to speak with the media and the media to speak with the police – where plaintiff contends that the media coverage of his arrest was hurtful to him - whether in the circumstances exemplary and aggravated damages should be awarded.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)

Cassell and Co Ltd v Bruin (1972) A.C. 1027, considered
Henry v Thompson [1989] 2 Qd.R. 412, cited
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 C.L.R 1, discussed

COUNSEL: The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf
Mr Rashleigh for the first, second and third defendants

SOLICITORS: The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf
Crown law for the first, second and third defendants

The plaintiff has instituted proceedings against the first and second defendants (both police officers) and the third defendant, the State of Queensland for damages for false imprisonment, assault and trespass to the person.

The third defendant is vicariously liable…

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 Coleman v. Watson & Shaw & Anor

Details

AGLC: Coleman v Watson and Shaw [2007] QSC 343
Case: [2007] QSC 343
Decision Date: 20 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coleman brought proceedings against Watson, Shaw, and another defendant (referred to as the third defendant), seeking damages for wrongful arrest, trespass, and other related wrongs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose when the plaintiff was denied entry to a sitting of parliament by the police, leading to his arrest and subsequent imprisonment. Both the first and second defendants admitted liability for the wrongful arrest and imprisonment.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensatory damages for the actions of the first and second defendants. Additionally, the court needed to decide if exemplary and aggravated damages were appropriate given the circumstances. The plaintiff had approached the media after being arrested, resulting in media coverage that the plaintiff claimed was hurtful. The court also had to consider the principle of joint and several liability in this context.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensatory damages for the wrongful arrest and imprisonment by the first and second defendants. The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in damages against each of the first, second, and third defendants, with interest accruing at ten percent for 5.2 years, resulting in a total of $30,400 per defendant. The court did not award exemplary or aggravated damages, finding that the media coverage did not warrant such an award under the circumstances. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action, limited to what would have been recoverable had the proceedings been instituted in the Magistrate's Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

I give judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten per cent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400.

I give judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten per cent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400.

I give judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten percent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400.

I order that the first defendant, second defendant and third defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed, such costs to be limited to the costs which would have been recoverable had the plaintiff instituted the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court.

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.

CITATION:	Coleman v Watson & Shaw & Anor [2007] QSC 343
PARTIES:	PATRICK JOHN COLEMAN (Plaintiff) v SENIOR CONSTABLE MITCHELL DOUGLAS WATSON (First Defendant) CONSTABLE ASHLEY ROBERT SHAW (Second Defendant) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Third Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S344 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	20 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
HEARING DATE:	13 & 14 November 2007
JUDGES:	Cullinane J
ORDER:	I give judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten per cent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400. I give judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten per cent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400. I give judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $20,000 together with interest at the rate of ten percent for 5.2 years producing a figure of $10,400 and a total of $30,400. I order that the first defendant, second defendant and third defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed, such costs to be limited to the costs which would have been recoverable had the plaintiff instituted the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court.
CATCHWORDS:	POLICE – ACTIONS FOR WRONGFUL ARREST, TRESPASS AND OTHER WRONGS – GENERALLY – LIABILITY OF CROWN AND ITS EMPLOYEES – where plaintiff was not allowed by police into a sitting of parliament - where first and second defendant admitted liability for wrongful arrest and wrongful imprisonment. TORT – JOINT OR SEVERAL TORTFEASORS – GENERALLY. DAMAGES – COMPENSATORY DAMAGES – whether plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for the conduct of the first and second defendant. DAMAGES – EXEMPLARY AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – where plaintiff after being told he could not enter the public area to view a sitting of parliament approached the media attracted there attention and gave a short speech – where plaintiff invited the police to speak with the media and the media to speak with the police – where plaintiff contends that the media coverage of his arrest was hurtful to him - whether in the circumstances exemplary and aggravated damages should be awarded. Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) Cassell and Co Ltd v Bruin (1972) A.C. 1027, considered Henry v Thompson [1989] 2 Qd.R. 412, cited Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 C.L.R 1, discussed
COUNSEL:	The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf Mr Rashleigh for the first, second and third defendants
SOLICITORS:	The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf Crown law for the first, second and third defendants