Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: HAWES v THE GOVERNOR OF THE GOULBOURN CORRECTIONAL CENTRE and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 140 Decision date: 18 December 1997
See Attachment (PDF)
Continue reading Hawes v The Governor of the Goulbourn Correctional Centre
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hawes v The Governor of the Goulbourn Correctional Centre [1997] NSWCA 140
- Case
- [1997] NSWCA 140
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Hawes v The Governor of the Goulbourn Correctional Centre and Anor* [1997] NSWCA 140, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the applicant, Hawes, against the decision of the primary judge. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for damages for alleged false imprisonment and assault.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the applicant had not been falsely imprisoned or assaulted, and whether the evidence supported these findings. Specifically, the court had to determine if the actions of the correctional officers constituted unlawful detention or the use of excessive force.
The Court of Appeal, in its reasoning, analysed the evidence presented at trial concerning the circumstances of the applicant's detention and the alleged assault. It applied principles of common law relating to false imprisonment, which requires proof of detention without lawful authority, and assault, which involves the apprehension of immediate unlawful violence. The court found that the evidence did not establish that the applicant's detention was unlawful or that he had been subjected to an assault. The court affirmed the primary judge's findings, concluding that the correctional officers had acted within their lawful powers and that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving his claims.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the applicant had not been falsely imprisoned or assaulted, and whether the evidence supported these findings. Specifically, the court had to determine if the actions of the correctional officers constituted unlawful detention or the use of excessive force.
The Court of Appeal, in its reasoning, analysed the evidence presented at trial concerning the circumstances of the applicant's detention and the alleged assault. It applied principles of common law relating to false imprisonment, which requires proof of detention without lawful authority, and assault, which involves the apprehension of immediate unlawful violence. The court found that the evidence did not establish that the applicant's detention was unlawful or that he had been subjected to an assault. The court affirmed the primary judge's findings, concluding that the correctional officers had acted within their lawful powers and that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving his claims.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.