Emde v State of New South Wales

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Gleeson, Kirk, and McHugh JJA, considered an appeal by Emde against the State of New South Wales. The dispute concerned allegations of false imprisonment arising from an arrest made by police officers. Emde contended that the arrest was unlawful, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable grounds to suspect that he had committed offences, particularly in relation to breaches of an ambiguous order. A further issue related to the "reasonably necessary" criterion for the arrest, with Emde arguing that the arresting officer's satisfaction on this point was manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, irrational, or not bona fide.

The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the power to arrest was lawfully exercised under section 99 of the *Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002* (NSW), which necessitates a suspicion on reasonable grounds that the person has committed or is committing an offence. Secondly, the Court had to consider the competency of the appeal, specifically whether it involved a matter at issue amounting to or of the value of $100,000 or more, as required for an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the relevant civil procedure rules, or if the party seeking to appeal could demonstrate that the appeal was not limited by this monetary sum.

The Court's reasoning focused on the application of section 99 of the *Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002* (NSW) and the principles governing the competency of appeals. The Court found that the arresting officer's belief that the arrest was reasonably necessary was not demonstrably unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, irrational, or lacking in bona fides. Furthermore, the Court determined that Emde had failed to demonstrate that the appeal involved a matter of the requisite monetary value or otherwise fell outside the monetary limitation for appeals to the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the Court ordered that leave to appeal be refused. The amended notice of appeal was otherwise dismissed, and a notice of motion filed on 18 February 2025 was also dismissed with no order as to costs.