Fields v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
Case
•
[2017] NSWCATAD 311
•27 October 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fields v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 311
[2017] NSWCATAD 311
27 October 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Fields v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, involved an Aboriginal man, Mr Fields, who alleged that police officers used excessive force during his arrest and failed to promptly decontaminate him after spraying him with capsicum spray. The dispute reached the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, where it was determined whether the complaint of discrimination on the ground of race and disability had enough substance to proceed and whether the police were providing a ‘service’ to the applicant during or immediately after his arrest. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board had initially declined the complaint on the basis that it lacked substance, and this decision was the subject of review by the tribunal.
The legal issues before the tribunal included whether the complaint could proceed in the absence of sufficient substance, and whether the police were providing a service to Mr Fields during or immediately after his arrest. The tribunal had to consider whether the complaint could be fairly and justly heard despite the initial declination by the Anti-Discrimination Board, and whether the police officers' actions during and immediately after the arrest constituted a service under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
In reaching its decision, the tribunal found that it was fair and just for the complaint to proceed, as the alleged incidents immediately following the arrest warranted investigation. The tribunal also held that the police were providing a service to Mr Fields during and immediately after his arrest, which brought the incident within the scope of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Consequently, the tribunal granted leave for the relevant part of Mr Fields’ complaint to proceed and made several orders, including the removal of Ms Patterson as an applicant, the addition of Mr Fields as an applicant, the appointment of Ms Patterson as Mr Fields’ guardian ad litem, and the granting of leave for the specified part of the complaint to proceed.
The legal issues before the tribunal included whether the complaint could proceed in the absence of sufficient substance, and whether the police were providing a service to Mr Fields during or immediately after his arrest. The tribunal had to consider whether the complaint could be fairly and justly heard despite the initial declination by the Anti-Discrimination Board, and whether the police officers' actions during and immediately after the arrest constituted a service under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
In reaching its decision, the tribunal found that it was fair and just for the complaint to proceed, as the alleged incidents immediately following the arrest warranted investigation. The tribunal also held that the police were providing a service to Mr Fields during and immediately after his arrest, which brought the incident within the scope of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Consequently, the tribunal granted leave for the relevant part of Mr Fields’ complaint to proceed and made several orders, including the removal of Ms Patterson as an applicant, the addition of Mr Fields as an applicant, the appointment of Ms Patterson as Mr Fields’ guardian ad litem, and the granting of leave for the specified part of the complaint to proceed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Human Rights Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Human Rights Law
-
Discrimination
-
Police Conduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
The Owners Strata Plan No 38308 v Gelder [2023] NSWCATEN 5
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Riley v State of NSW (Department of Education)
[2019] NSWCATAD 223
The Owners Strata Plan No 38308 v Gelder
[2023] NSWCATEN 5
Riley v State of NSW (Department of Education)
[2019] NSWCATAD 223
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
4
Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales
[2009] NSWSC 143
Waters v Public Transport Corporation
[1991] HCA 49