DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Eaves v Donelly & Anor [2011] QDC 207
PARTIES:
RENEE TERRI EAVES
(Plaintiff)v
BARRY JOHN DONELLY
(First Defendant)and
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Second Defendant)FILE NO/S:
D705 of 2008
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:
15 September 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8, 9, 10 and 11 August 2011
JUDGE:
Samios DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $93,000 inclusive of interest.
CATCHWORDS:
STATUTES:
CASES:
TORT – false imprisonment – police – wrongful arrest – damages
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act2002
Police Powers And Responsibilities Act2000 (reprint no. 4F) – s 198
Police Service Administration Act1990 – s 10.5Cassell & Co. Ltd v Broome (1972) AC 1027 at pp 1124-1126 applied
Coleman v Watson & Shaw [2007] QSC 343 applied
Couchy v Birchley (2005) QDC 334 considered
Cubillo v Commonwealth (No. 2) (2000) 103 FCR 1 at 354-355 cited
Ferguson v State of Queensland & Anor [2007] QSC 322 applied
Henry v Thompson [1989] 2 Qd R 412 cited
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1, 8 applied
Ruddock v Taylor (2005) CLR 612, 650-651 citedCOUNSEL:
The plaintiff was self represented
Ms Philipson of Counsel (Counsel for the first and second defendants)SOLICITORS:
The plaintiff was self represented
G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the first and second defendants
The plaintiff claims the first defendant, who was a police officer, arrested and handcuffed the plaintiff for the alleged offence of disqualified driving. The plaintiff claims she did not drive whilst disqualified as claimed by the first defendant. At a later hearing before a Magistrate the plaintiff was found not guilty of the alleged offence.
The plaintiff claims that all up, from the time she was arrested and handcuffed to the time she was released from the watch house, it was a period of about two and a half hours.
This action is the plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant for damages for false imprisonment on the ground her arrest and handcuffing was not excused or justified by law.
The plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant is on the ground that the second defendant is liable for the first defendant’s wrongful actions (s10.5 Police Service Administration Act 1990).
The plaintiff was born on 29 April 1976.
At about 5.45 pm on 16 March 2006 the first defendant came to the plaintiff’s home at Unit 110, 54 Vernon Terrace, Teneriffe, Brisbane with Constable Mann where they spoke to the plaintiff.
The defendants say the suburb was Newstead but nothing turns on this.
At the plaintiff’s home the first defendant spoke to the plaintiff in relation to her allegedly driving a motor vehicle on Commercial Road, Teneriffe whilst being a person who was disqualified from holding a driver’s licence.
It is agreed the alleged offence occurred approximately 20 minutes before the first defendant attended the plaintiff’s home.
Whilst at the plaintiff’s home the first defendant told the plaintiff he had observed her…
Continue reading Eaves v Donelly & Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Eaves v Donelly & Anor [2011] QDC 207
- Case
- [2011] QDC 207
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the police officers acted within their lawful authority when they arrested and detained Eaves. The primary legal issue was whether the arrest and detention were justified under the relevant statutory provisions and common law principles governing police powers. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent of any damages that the plaintiff might be entitled to recover due to the alleged false imprisonment.
The court found that the police officers did not have a lawful basis for the arrest and detention of the plaintiff. It was determined that the officers had acted outside their authority and without reasonable grounds. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the false imprisonment. The damages were quantified at $93,000, inclusive of interest, reflecting the distress and inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the wrongful arrest. The court emphasised the importance of police adhering to legal standards when exercising their powers to prevent such occurrences in the future.
The court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $93,000 inclusive of interest. This sum was awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the harm suffered due to the wrongful arrest and detention.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $93,000 inclusive of interest.
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.