Goldberg v Brown - [2003] VSC 104

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4875 of 2003

DAVID GOLDBERG	Plaintiff
v
RHONDA BROWN	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 MARCH 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 MARCH 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	GOLDBERG v BROWN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 104

---

Seizure of a car – Legality of initial seizure – Legality of subsequent retention of the car after issue of a warrant.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In Person
For the Defendant	Mr M. Grinberg	Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

On 28 March 2003 I gave an ex tempore judgment in this matter which was not transcribed, and I indicated to the parties at that time I would subsequently provide written reasons for my decision. These written reasons do not differ in substance from what I said on that date.

The plaintiff in this matter seeks an order for the return to him of a motor car.

The defendant is a Detective Senior Constable of Police. On 6 March 2003 she was advised by a Licensed Vehicle Identification Validation Inspector (whom I shall refer to as the VIV Inspector), that in his opinion the car which he had inspected on that day, was not the same vehicle as that which it purported to be.

More particularly, the VIV Inspector formed the opinion and advised the defendant that the car was not that which had been written-off by VicRoads on a prior date and had been given the Vehicle Identification Number which the car he inspected bore.

Consequent upon this advice from the VIV Inspector, the defendant formed the opinion that the vehicle was in all probability stolen and seized the car and conveyed it to the Caulfield Police Station. Thereafter, following a dispute as to the propriety of this course of action, the plaintiff issued these proceedings by way of writ on 13 March 2003 alleging wrongful seizure and detention of the car.

On 12 March 2003 Detective Senior Constable Teesdale of the Organised Stolen Motor Vehicle Squad inspected the car. He is part of a "vetting crew" assigned to deal with initial complaints concerning vehicles which are suspected to be re-identified stolen vehicles.

Detective Senior Constable Teesdale states:

"The vehicle had previously been declared as a repairable write-off by the insurance company.
During the inspection of the vehicle I noted that the date coding of vehicle components was not consistent with the build plate date, this means that components on the vehicle had been manufactured after the date the vehicle had been built. The plates had also been removed from the vehicle and refitted at some stage.
The Vehicle Identification Number on the fire wall of the vehicle appeared to have been altered by over-stamping some of the characters.
The vehicle also had signs of repair in the rear footwell of the passenger compartment not consistent with the original damage.
The vehicle was displaying all the trademarks of a…

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 Goldberg v Brown

Details

AGLC: Goldberg v Brown [2003] VSC 104
Case: [2003] VSC 104
Decision Date: 28 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goldberg v Brown involved a dispute regarding the legality of the seizure of a car by the police. The respondent, Goldberg, sought a declaration that the seizure and subsequent retention of his car by the police was unlawful, as well as an order for the return of his vehicle. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the initial seizure of the car by the police was lawful, and if the subsequent retention of the car after the issue of a warrant was also lawful. The court needed to determine whether the actions of the police were in accordance with the law and whether any statutory requirements were met. The court had to consider the provisions of the relevant legislation, including the Motor Vehicles Act 1912 (NSW) and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (NSW).

The court found that the initial seizure of the car was lawful as it was based on reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed. However, the court held that the subsequent retention of the car after the issue of a warrant was unlawful as it exceeded the statutory authority for retaining the vehicle. The court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions when exercising police powers. The court concluded that the seizure and retention of the car were unlawful, and ordered the return of the vehicle to the respondent.

The court further ordered that the respondent be compensated for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the unlawful seizure and retention of his car. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the rights of individuals and ensuring that police powers are exercised within the bounds of the law. The decision in this case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the need to strictly comply with statutory provisions when exercising their powers.

Orders