Houda v New South Wales

[2005] NSWSC 1053

Reported Decision: (2005) Aust Torts Reports 81-816

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:	Houda v The State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 1053
HEARING DATE(S):	12/09/05 - 6/10/05
JUDGMENT DATE :	25 October 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	Cooper AJ at 1
DECISION:	1. Judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant on each of the causes of action pleaded.; 2. I assess damages in the total amount of $145.000.00; 3. I invite submissions on the questions of interest and costs.

CATCHWORDS:	Malicious prosecution - Wrongful arrest - False imprisonment - Aggravated damages - Exemplary damages - Intentional act that is done with intent to cause injury (s3B(1)(a) Civil Liability Act 2002) - "Injury" (in that section) - Accrual of cause of action (Limitation Act)
LEGISLATION CITED:	Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 Crimes Act 1900 Limitation Act 1969 Civil Liability Act 2002
CASES CITED:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 366 Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517 Emad Trolley v Shigar (2003) 57 NSWLR 636 McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club 2005 NSWSC 107 McDonald v Coles Myer Limited 1995 Australian Torts Report 81-361 Little v Law Institute of Victoria [1990] VR 247 Savile v Roberts [1698] 1Ld. Raym.374 Amin v Bannerjee 1947 AC 322 Cassell and Co Limited v Broome & Anor (1972) AC 1027 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd 117 CLR 115 Praed v Graham (1889) 24 QBD 53 XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 471
PARTIES:	Adam Houda v The State of New South Wales
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 20217/03
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff: Mr M. Neil QC/ Mr M. Gollan Defendant: Mr P. Bodor QC/ Mr P. Saidi
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff: Gilbert & Tobin Lawyers Defendant: Crown Solicitor's Office

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ACTING JUSTICE COOPER

Tuesday 25 October 2005

20217 of 2003

ADAM HOUDA v THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1 COOPER AJ: By his Statement of Claim filed on 7 August 2003 the plaintiff sued three police officers plus the State of New South Wales alleging malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, wrongful arrest and assault and claimed general compensatory damages, special damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, costs and interest.

2 On 4 March 2004 an order was made by consent that the proceedings against the first, second and third defendants (the named police officers) be dismissed pursuant to section 9D of the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 as amended.

3 The events giving rise to this action took place at about 10:30 on the morning of Friday 25 August 2000 in the vestibule adjacent to the court rooms on the first level of the Burwood Local Court.

4 The plaintiff, dressed in a suit with collar and tie, was there in his capacity as a solicitor and was awaiting the arrival of two clients. Constable Lance Stebbing, dressed in police uniform, whose actions form the basis of the plaintiff’s claim was also present at that time and place for the purpose of giving evidence in a case listed in one of the court rooms.

5 The versions of what occurred differ markedly between that presented on behalf of the plaintiff and that presented on behalf of the defendant.

6 The plaintiff’s version as particularised in his Statement of Claim is that Constable Stebbing approached him and initiated conversation with him. He then placed the palm of his right hand onto the plaintiff’s chest and pushed him. The constable then continued to walk towards the plaintiff in a threatening manner and the plaintiff responded to defend himself by placing his right hand in an open position in front of the chest of Constable Stebbing who then pushed him a second time using the palm of his right hand upon the plaintiff’s chest. Thereupon the plaintiff was arrested and charged with assaulting Constable Stebbing.

7 To be more precise, the charge was that on the 25th day of August 2000 at Burwood in the State of New South Wales he did assault Lance Stebbing then being a constable in the execution of his duty under section 60 of the Crimes Act 1900. (Exhibit E).

8 It is common ground that that charge was withdrawn and dismissed on 12 February 2001 before the Local Court at Burwood.

9 The version of events pleaded by the defendant in its Amended Defence alleges that the plaintiff approached Constable Bergamin in the presence of Constable Stebbing and after such approach acted in an aggressive manner. Shortly afterwards, the plaintiff was requested by Constable Stebbing to step away which the plaintiff refused to do. Constable Stebbing sought to have him leave the area given his then behaviour, and in doing so raised his right hand and put it to the plaintiff’s chest. Constable Stebbing’s hand was knocked away by the plaintiff who continued with his aggressive behaviour refusing to step away and later striking Constable Stebbing in the chest with two open hands. During the course of the contact Constable Stebbing feared that the plaintiff was going to strike him. As a consequence of the actions of the plaintiff Constable Stebbing with the assistance of two other police officers arrested the plaintiff for assaulting him.

10 The first task in the resolution of this case is to determine what did occur between the plaintiff of the one part and Constables Stebbing and Bergamin of the other.

11 A number of witnesses have been called by both parties on this issue. It is proposed to summarise the evidence of each in turn.

EVIDENCE CALLED FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

The Plaintiff

12 He arrived at the court house shortly after 10:00am and there saw a man, Joseph Ayoub, who was a client of his but not in respect of any case for hearing on that day. The plaintiff was aware that he was a person who had mental problems and was speaking to him. The plaintiff said that whilst he was speaking to Mr Ayoub Constable Bergamin came over to them and said to Mr Ayoub “After court today I am going to be arresting you.” The plaintiff said that he then moved away because he did not wish to be involved in that particular matter.

13 He saw Constable Bergamin walk away from Mr Ayoub and start speaking to two police officers one of whom was Constable Stebbing. They were about five metres to his right. Joseph Ayoub approached him and said something to him and suddenly he was approached by Constable Bergamin who asked him if he was Joseph’s lawyer. He replied that he was his lawyer but not in relation to any matters on that day.

14 She then began to explain that she wanted to charge and arrest him to which he replied with words to the effect:-

“You can do what you please, but I give you a friendly tip. Be careful how you approach this person because he is quite dangerous. I have spoken to Dr Roberts about him and that is what he tells me. Just be careful. If you approach him gently, maybe you will be able to get what you want out of him much easier. Just be nice to him”.

15 He testified that she replied to the effect: “Ok. Just recently, I went to arrest him and he slammed the door in my face”. The plaintiff replied “No problems. I agree he’s problematic”. The plaintiff described this conversation as quite friendly.

16 His evidence was that while he was speaking to Constable Bergamin he noticed that Constable Stebbing was looking at him in an unfriendly way. While he was speaking to her he was approached from his right by Constable Stebbing who said to him whilst pointing at him “Now you, you treat this officer with respect”.

17 The plaintiff claimed that he was quite stunned by this approach, looked at Constable Bergamin and then replied “I am speaking to the officer with the most ultimate respect, so could you please mind you own business.” Constable Stebbing then walked towards him pointed toward the staircase and loudly said “Fuck off”. There were then at least fifty other persons present in that vestibule.

18 The plaintiff said that he was shocked and responded “Well this is a person talking to me about respect. Well that is very respectful officer. How dare you swear at me in front of all these people”.

19 Constable Stebbing kept walking towards him then pushed him with his right hand on the chest.

20 This caused the plaintiff to stumble back and for him to respond “What the hell are you doing, you idiot.” Constable Stebbing walked towards him and said “Get out of my personal space. Get out of my personal space”.

21 The plaintiff replied “Where do you want me to go, you idiot? I have a wall behind me. I am waiting for my client. I have a job to do here. Where do you want me to go? Where do you want me to go?”

22 Constable Stebbing repeated “Get out of my personal space” and pushed him again in the chest with his right hand. The plaintiff said that by this time he hit the wall which was behind him, he could not go anywhere, he was frightened because this person who was a police officer had the audacity to assault him in front of all these people and he thought he must be “crazy”.

23 As Constable Stebbing was walking towards him the plaintiff said words to the effect “Please stay off me” and he put his right hand up with an open palm facing the constable who kept walking towards him repeating words to the effect “Get out of my personal space”. The constable came into contact with his hand.

24 Constable Stebbing then cocked his head towards the side, told him he was under arrest and two police officers came over and grabbed him and told him he was under arrest for assaulting a police officer.

25 The plaintiff protested that it was Constable Stebbing who had assaulted and swore at him. He looked at Constable Bergamin and said “You just -you have seen everything. Are you going to get involved here? Are you going to come to my aid?” She did nothing.

26 The two officers were grabbing onto his arms very tightly and hurting him. He said to them “Look I’m a solicitor. I’m not going to run away. Why are you grabbing me like this?” One replied “You are a prisoner now, pork chop that is the way we have to detain you”. The plaintiff asked if he could take the names and addresses of witnesses. This request was denied. He was then taken to Burwood Police Station.

Lyndal Patricia Francis.

27 She was present in that vestibule waiting to give evidence as a witness in an offensive language charge on behalf of the defendant. Her attention was attracted by the sound of a man’s voice fairly upset saying “You’re an idiot. You’re a deadset dickhead.” She turned around to see what was going on. She saw Constable Stebbing approaching the plaintiff from “sort of behind him” and reaching within close speaking distance of him. They were moving from her right to her left in front of her with the plaintiff ahead. Constable Stebbing came up behind the plaintiff who turned around to speak to him. She did not hear all of the words spoken but heard mostly from the constable. She then saw Constable Stebbing push the plaintiff in the upper chest area with what she believed was his right hand. She called it a “hefty shove” because the plaintiff staggered back a few steps. Thereupon Constable Van Akker and another uniformed police officer grabbed the plaintiff. As they were dragging him away the plaintiff was saying words to the effect of “he pushed me why aren’t you arresting him”.

28 She next saw the plaintiff later in the day when he returned and spoke to her and obtained her contact particulars.

29 She thought that the incident had happened just before lunch and that the plaintiff approached her after lunch. She is mistaken in this detail.

30 She said that she heard the police officer use not only the word “dickhead” to the plaintiff but she also heard him tell the plaintiff to “fuck off” when he pushed the plaintiff.

31 Exhibit H is a photocopy from her diary in which she made an entry from her memory of the events on 27 August 2000. It is of assistance to set out that entry:-

“The other day I had to go to court. There was a lot of sitting around. At one stage a raised voice saying “You are an idiot, a deadset idiot” turned heads. The voice came from a short man with a shaved head wearing a leather jacket. He was berating another one wearing a suit. The dialogue was two sided but I could only hear when the voices were raised and heard very little of what the suit said. The cop was behaving in an extremely aggressive manner. He was like a dog barking at a stranger on the property. The Campsie police approached them and the cop then said “fuck off” and pushed this guy in the chest hard enough to send him staggering back. He gained his balance and stepped forward and it looked like he was going to push back when Van Akker said “You are under arrest” and they grabbed the suit. He said loudly “ He pushed me first. Why don’t you arrest him”. I did not hear any answer. They dragged him off protesting loudly.”

32 In her evidence at page 208 she said that she heard the plaintiff raise his voice only when he was arrested and that, up to that stage, the plaintiff appeared to be trying to placate Constable Stebbing who was very upset.

33 She described the events as the plaintiff moving away from the constable and from where she was sitting it looked as if Constable Stebbing was in pursuit of him. Her evidence was that the plaintiff walked from the door of a court maybe twenty metres, maybe not that far, when he stopped. Constable Stebbing did not stop until he completely caught up with the plaintiff and was abusing him all the way. She added that her impression was that the police officer was in pursuit of the plaintiff with the intent of assaulting him and that he was really angry.

34 She said that the only words she heard were words like “deadset idiot” and “dickhead” coming from Constable Stebbing. She could not hear what the plaintiff was saying because he was speaking quietly.

35 She said that when the police officer caught up with the plaintiff and the plaintiff had turned around neither of them were up against anything but she thought there may have been some seats a bit further back behind the plaintiff.

36 She denied that the plaintiff appeared to be red in the facial area or that he had spittle coming out of his mouth whilst he was talking to Constable Stebbing and said that she was in sufficiently close proximity to have seen that if it had occurred.

Kelvin Michael Farrington.

37 He was present at the court with Karl Bosworth who was a party to a case then awaiting hearing.

38 He was sitting talking when he heard a loud voice behind him. He turned round and saw three people in a loud discussion. There was the plaintiff, Constable Stebbing and Constable Bergamin.

39 The first thing he heard was “You swore at me first” said by the plaintiff. He was about ten metres away from them and could not hear everything that was said. They appeared to be arguing about something and then he saw the police constable put his hand on the plaintiff’s chest. This appeared to have no effect upon the plaintiff other than that he replied “Don’t touch me”. They continued talking and were quite close and the constable put his hand upon the plaintiff’s chest again. The plaintiff replied “Don’t touch me” and put his hand upon the constable’s chest. The next thing that happened was that the constable swayed to the right and there were three other policemen who came over and placed the plaintiff under arrest. The plaintiff appeared quite upset and said “Why don’t you arrest him” eventually the plaintiff was taken down the stairs.

40 About an hour later the plaintiff returned and asked people in the foyer if they had seen the incident earlier in the day. The plaintiff spoke to Mr Farrington.

41 Later Mr Farrington typed up a statement as to what happened and sent it off to the plaintiff. That statement was prepared within a day or two of 25 August 2000. It is Exhibit K.

42 Mr Farrington said that Mr Bosworth was represented by a solicitor on that day and that he had a conference with him about the evidence he may give in the proceedings at the court house. The witness said that from the time he turned around until he was arrested the plaintiff and Constable Stebbing were face to face but may have got closer as they were talking but he could not be sure. He did not hear someone say “fuck off”.

43 He said that the plaintiff was facing him and the police officer had his back to him but slightly at an angle.

44 Mr Farrington said that the plaintiff was reactive to what was being done by Constable Stebbing and appeared to be angry but not excitable. He did not see either the plaintiff or the police officer stumbling backwards. He emphatically denied that as the plaintiff was speaking to the police officer spit was coming from his mouth and said that although he was fifteen metres away he could still testify to this.

Carl Leonard Bosworth.

45 He was present at the Court representing himself in response to an apprehended violence order and denied that he had a solicitor with him. He was with his father and Mr Farrington.

46 Around 10:30am he saw the plaintiff with a policewoman talking and said (page 251) “They were just talking, they were fine.” He was then about five metres from them and could not hear the voices.

47 He then saw another policeman come reasonable quickly up to them and the other policeman pushed the plaintiff pretty hard on the chest - hard enough for him to step backwards.

48 His evidence was that from the back of the court area another bunch of police people came out and took the plaintiff away. The only thing which he could remember the plaintiff saying after his arrest was “I can’t believe this”.

49 About an hour and a half later he was still at the court when the plaintiff returned and asked people if they had seen what had happened. He gave the plaintiff his contact details.

50 Under cross examination (page 257) he said:-

“What I’m saying is that I saw a gentleman policeman come up in front of Mr Houda and pretty much within ten seconds or twenty seconds, push him forcefully and hard and enough to make Mr Houda go backwards.

Q. How far backwards?
A. A metre. Enough to be off balance”.

51 He also said that he could not recollect the conversations at all but he did remember the physical activities involved in the incident. In response to questions he denied that the plaintiff was raising up in an enraged presentation and that his face was flushed with anger and that spittle was coming from his mouth. He also said that he did not see the policeman exhibiting signs of rage. Contrary to the evidence of Ms Francis he said that Constable Stebbing was not wearing a leather jacket.

Graeme Ronald Armstrong.

52 He was present at court “Just moral support for a friend” (page 286).

53 He heard some noise coming from a couple of metres away on his right. In particular he heard the word “fuck” being used and this caused him to pay more attention. He saw the plaintiff and the police officer having words but could not recall fully what was said.

54 He heard the police officer say the word “fuck” and then the plaintiff was pushed by him on the chest with the palm of his hand.

55 Before this push the plaintiff said that the police officer should not be swearing because he is a police officer. After the push police officers came in and arrested the plaintiff.

56 The plaintiff yelled out “come on” and appeared a bit annoyed.

57 He said that at that stage the plaintiff asked another officer if she had seen Stebbing push him and swear at him.

58 About an hour later the plaintiff returned and asked if anybody would like to make a statement on what they had seen. Mr Farrington said that he was prepared to do so and gave the plaintiff his contact details. In addition he gave him information as to what he had seen. He later received a form of statement from the plaintiff which he signed and returned.

59 Early in 2001 he was contacted by Constable Stebbing and he went to St Marys police station where he met him on 18 January 2001.

60 He was asked to make a statement about the events and said that the constable was trying to get him to say certain things. He explained:-

“Probably because when I said something, he tried to change it. Like, if I said he had pushed Adam he would say to me ‘Did I really push him?’ or ‘Maybe this had happened’ or ‘Maybe that had happened’. Yeah, he was sort of trying to maybe give me a different thought of what might have happened.

Q. What did you say to any of these things?
A. In the end, to be honest, I was just wanting to get out of there and I sort of allowed him to write what he had written of what I had said.”

61 He then gave as an example that in the statement (Exhibit M) it said that he was not sure as to who had said “fuck” whereas he was positive that the police officer had said it.

62 He also said that when he heard the word “fuck” he saw the plaintiff and Constable Stebbing more or less confronting each other and a policewoman closer to him blocking part of his view between the plaintiff and Constable Stebbing. Thus there could have been movement between the constable and the plaintiff which he did not see because the policewoman was blocking that part of his view.

63 At page 316 he said that when he initially saw the plaintiff and Constable Bergamin talking, Constable Stebbing was not there. He came over from somewhere else in the court, sort of stepped into the middle of it all and that is when the plaintiff and Stebbing had their little altercation. He also agreed that when Stebbing came from his right the female officer stepped out of the way and the two men were face to face and that was when the female officer had her back to him.

Richard Abe Hall.

64 He had arrived at the Burwood Local Court at about 9:30 that morning to defend a restraining order and was with Graeme Armstrong.

65 While he was sitting he noticed people talking beside him. The first he saw was a large gentleman and then the plaintiff speaking to a female officer. He described the manner in which the plaintiff was speaking to the female officer as “confident in the way he was talking, but it was just a normal tone”. There appeared to be no problem at that stage. Page 422.

66 There was a male police officer standing with his right shoulder closer to the pylon and the female officer was standing to his left with the plaintiff virtually in front of the male officer about a metre and a half back at an angle facing the female officer as he was speaking to her.

67 He saw the leg of the male officer come across from the pylon towards the female officer and the plaintiff.

68 At that stage he could only see the side part of the plaintiff’s face. When he was speaking he could see his jaw movement and head move as if he was talking but he could not directly see his face. He could see the face and the body of the female officer.

69 He noticed the policeman come from beside the pylon, lean forward and his foot came out. He leaned across to the plaintiff and said “move away”. He then put his hand up and said “move away” and the plaintiff replied “Excuse me, I’m not speaking to you, I’m speaking to the female officer” and turned back to speak to the female officer.

70 After a break of what the witness described as “probably four or five words” the male officer leaned forward again extending his hand forward with a knuckle and two fingers and hit the plaintiff on the left side of his chest pushing him backwards towards his left.

71 He described the constable as having his middle ring and little fingers bent in the form of a knuckle but his index finger upwards as he touched the plaintiff.

72 He said that the plaintiff then stepped back about two paces pushed the constable’s hand away and said “Don’t hit me.” His evidence is that was then that the police officer grabbed the plaintiff’s hand and put it behind his back and told him that he had assaulted police.

73 The plaintiff started saying “You hit me first”. Four other police officers who had been standing at the top of the stairs came across grabbed the plaintiff and told him that he was being charged. That was when the plaintiff started protesting saying “Could I get numbers and names of witnesses up here”. They took him downstairs and that was the last he saw of him for about twenty to thirty minutes.

74 When the plaintiff returned to the vestibule area he approached people behind Mr Hall asking them if they had seen what had happened. When the plaintiff walked past him, Mr Hall told the plaintiff “If you need a witness let me know. I saw the whole incident.”

75 Later he and the plaintiff went into a room where either the plaintiff or Mr Hall wrote out a statement which Mr Hall signed. A few weeks later Mr Hall received a copy of the statement that had been written at the Court together with a letter saying if he wanted to change or amend anything he could do so and to sign and return it. Mr. Hall signed and returned the statement which is Exhibit U.

76 Some time later he was contacted by Constable Stebbing to ask him to write out a statement. He saw Constable Stebbing at St Marys police station. In his evidence (page 427) he said:-

“I wrote a statement on my own free will but I had to – I wasn’t intimidated by the police officer and I didn’t feel threatened, but I was more nervous to write a statement about a police officer to that police officer, to say that he hit somebody, so I toned it down, while I gave the statement to him direct.”

77 He said that the only time he heard words from the plaintiff was when he pushed the officer’s arm away and said “don’t hit me”. After the policeman grabbed hold of him the plaintiff did shout. (Page 434).

78 The statement of Mr Hall given to the police is Exhibit V.

Grazziella (Grace) Melissa Bergamin.

79 She was a uniformed police constable attending court to give evidence in a case. She saw Mr Joseph Ayoub who was well known to her and who was wanted by her in relation to a charge of breach of an Apprehended Violence Order.

80 She also saw the plaintiff.

81 She was unable to recall accurately the events of 25 August 2000 without the assistance of her notebook and statement. (Page 485).

82 With that assistance she gave evidence of a conversation with Mr Ayoub in the presence of the plaintiff as follows:

“I said ‘Joseph, after you have finished at court with your matter you will be under arrest for breach of the AVO for the matter which occurred at your house. You know you saw me there.’

Joseph said ‘What are you talking about?’ I said ‘Joseph I saw you there at Cutbush Avenue’. Joseph said ‘Can I show you papers. The AVO was retracted. Look I am upset and not well.’ I said ‘No sir. When you have finished at court we will talk about it then, ok?’ Joseph said ‘yeah’.”

83 Her evidence continued that, a short time later, the plaintiff approached her and said “You shouldn’t talk to Joseph like that”. She replied “I’m sorry” in the sense that she did not quite understand what he was getting at. The plaintiff said “You shouldn’t talk to Joseph. You make him distressed. He’s not normal you know.” Constable Bergamin said “Joseph is normal. I spoke to Jospeh nicely, I always do.” The plaintiff replied “I know. He is upset at the moment”.

84 Constable Bergamin said “Are you his solicitor?” He replied “Not for this matter, for another matter.”

85 I would interpolate here that the words alleged to have been used by the plaintiff appear conciliatory. When Constable Bergamin said that she had spoken to Joseph nicely and always did, he did not contradict her. Instead he agreed saying “I know. He is upset at the moment.” Constable Bergamin, however, said that the plaintiff was getting a bit aggressive. It was his demeanour and the puffing of the chest and the way he was speaking to her as well as the tone of his voice that made her conclude that the plaintiff was getting aggressive. The tone of his voice was harsh, quite blunt, a little bit loud. He was then just a normal talking distance in front of her. (Pages 487-488).

86 Constable Bergamin said that the plaintiff got closer towards her. She said “Joseph was extremely aggressive to me the last time I spoke to him. I was being nice. He needs to be arrested after court for breach of AVO. I will speak to him about it”. She said the plaintiff replied “Leave him alone. Why do you have to arrest him anyway?”

87 Constable Bergamin said that at that stage the plaintiff seemed angry, his face was starting to get a little bit flushed and he was quite close to her - about twenty to thirty centimetres away. She felt uncomfortable.

88 She then turned round to Mr Ayoub and said “Joseph why don’t you come over here and show me the papers”. The two of them then left the plaintiff and walked over to and entered an interview room near court where they spoke about the AVO matter.

89 Before she left that area with Mr Ayoub she said that Constable Stebbing came into the conversation and that she left shortly afterwards. She said that when Constable Stebbing intervened he said “Excuse me, sir, would you please settle down and lower your voice”. The plaintiff replied “Am I talking to you?” Constable Stebbing said “No, but I am talking to you. This is a police officer. You should treat her with respect. Please settle down.” The plaintiff said “I am treating her with respect.” She did not see from where Constable Stebbing had come. She could not recall whether he appeared from her left or right.

90 Her evidence was that whilst she was inside the interview room with Mr Ayoub she heard the plaintiff’s voice talking loudly. She walked out of the room and over to where the two were speaking to each other. She said that the first thing that she had noticed was that the plaintiff’s face had gone all red and his voice was a lot louder than when she had left him. They were very close to each other and the plaintiff was quite upright, his chest was puffed out and there was spittle coming out of his mouth when he spoke. They were then between ten to fifteen centimetres and twenty-five centimetres apart from each other.

91 They were about the same height but the plaintiff was bigger than the constable. After referring to her statement she was able to continue her evidence from it.

92 Her evidence was that the plaintiff said “You move, you stepped up to me. This is how you talk to me” Constable Stebbing moved back a short distance and there were people behind him and to the right of him so that he could not get back any further. The plaintiff then said “Mate you’re an idiot, you think that you can do what you want just because you have that uniform”. Bits of spittle were coming out of his mouth.

93 Constable Stebbing said “I don’t give a stuff just take a step back”. The plaintiff did not respond or move.

94 Constable Stebbing said “Sir I’m asking you as a police officer to step away from me”. The plaintiff replied “I don’t care. You came up to me. I don’t care at all”. In response Constable Stebbing said “Sir, look at the way in which you are acting. I will ask you again to step away from me.”

95 Constable Bergamin said that at this point the plaintiff was aggressive and yelling. There was more spittle, his face had gone all red, his eyes were widening and he was shaping up. She said that it was as if someone was getting ready to fight. He had his shoulders back and his chest and a solid stance.

96 She saw Constable Stebbing put his left hand up towards the plaintiff’s chest and the plaintiff pushed it away. The plaintiff then put both of his hands up with an open palm facing outwards. Constable Stebbing put one of his hands up. The plaintiff pushed Constable Stebbing’s hand away and then the plaintiff with both hands pushed Constable Stebbing in the chest and he stumbled back a bit. She explained that she did not mean stumble back a couple of steps but just an imbalance and a step back. She said that Constable Stebbing then told the plaintiff that he was under arrest for assault police.

97 After referring to her statement she was able to say that between Constable Stebbing raising his left hand and putting it on Mr Houda’s chest and Mr Houda raising both hands, Constable Stebbing said “Please step back or I will push you back. You are standing in my personal space”.

98 Her impression was that Constable Stebbing had hold of the plaintiff’s arm and the plaintiff was wriggling trying to get out of that hold when Constable Van Akker and Sergeant Bennett came over to assist in the arrest. The plaintiff was calling out “This is shit this is shit”. The plaintiff was then taken away.

99 She remained at the court for a short period of time and then went to Burwood Police Station and then came back to the court. She could not recall why she went to the police station.

100 Constable Bergamin gave evidence that she wrote out her typed statement at Flemington Police Station and that at that stage she had Constable Stebbing’s statement with her. When asked why she had it she said “As an aid memoir, to refresh my memory from the incident that had occurred.” (Page 505).

101 Constable Bergamin denied that she ever was threatened physically or otherwise by the plaintiff but she just felt uncomfortable. She agreed at page 519 that her notebook entry covered only the conversation that she had with Mr Ayoub and the plaintiff and stops at that point and does not cover the events between the plaintiff and Constable Stebbing leading up to the assault. This was despite the fact that the notebook entry was made after the arrest of the plaintiff in respect of a charge of assaulting Constable Stebbing. It does contain the words “re assault at Burwood Local Court, Constables Stebbing, McCabe, Sergeant Bennett, Constable Van Akker, Constable Campbell present”. But it makes no mention of the circumstances of the assault.

102 The recording of the circumstances of the assault appear in her statement which was prepared when she had Constable Stebbing’s statement and which she had read when she prepared her statement.

103 Constable Bergamin agreed (page 526) that Constable Stebbing would have been to her left and came across into the conversation between her and the plaintiff.

104 At page 546 she was asked whether there was not a bit of an inconsistency between the actual words used by the plaintiff and her description of the plaintiff’s aggression. Her reply was “I may, people can say even things that don’t sound aggressive in an aggressive manner.”

105 Her evidence (page 571) was that when the plaintiff pushed Constable Stebbing the latter stepped back something like half a metre and there was then room behind him for him to take that step.

106 She denied hearing the plaintiff say “He hit me” or “He hit me first” or “He swore at me”. She was then only two to four metres from him. Other witnesses heard the plaintiff use words to this effect.

107 Her response to questions concerning her use of Constable Stebbing’s statement to prepare her own statement (page 541) is enlightening on the issue of her reliability as a witness:-

Q. You understand that it is dangerous to get other people's statements for that process, because they are not your notes of what took place?
A. No, I think that's incorrect. I'm still - in my statement it is still what I saw and what I heard. If there was something in Constable Stebbing's statement that I didn't think was right, there is no way it would be in my statement, it's not what I saw or heard or thought was correct. That's the only thing that is in my statement, what's correct.

Q. You don't know that, because your notebook doesn't make any reference or notes in respect of the matter. You have told us that you need to refresh your memory. The only source you have gone to is Mr Stebbing, is that correct?
A. No, that's not correct.

Q. What other source did you go to?
A. My notebook and Constable Stebbing's statement.

Q. Your notebook, you have told us, doesn't tell us anything about the assault?
A. It tells me about the conversation that I had with Mr Houda and Mr Ayoub.

Q. You have confirmed that you understood that when Mr Houda was arrested, that it was because of an alleged assault on Constable Stebbing?
A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. You have got nothing in there about that, do you?
A. No.

Q. At all?
A. Just the assault at Burwood Local Court.

Q. Just the title?
A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. The only other source of information that you accessed by way of documents to refresh your memory was the statement of Constable Stebbing?
A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Constable Stebbing is the victim?
A. Yes, he is.


Lance Stebbing.

108 He first noticed the plaintiff and Mr Ayoub together near the entrance to court number 5. He saw Constable Bergamin appear to be having a conversation with Mr Ayoub. She then came over to him. They were joined by the plaintiff who started speaking to her. At that stage she was standing next to Constable Stebbing.

109 He then gave evidence of conversation between the plaintiff and Constable Bergamin in identical terms to that given earlier by Constable Bergamin.

110 He described the plaintiff as very angry when he started talking to Constable Bergamin. The first action of the plaintiff which he said was aggressive was making a form of winding motion with his hand which was moving back and forth while he was talking. His voice was raised although he was not shouting at that stage. His voice was short and sharp. He looked angry in his face but as the conversation went on his face started to get red but that was not until a bit later. He then said to the plaintiff “Can you please settle down and lower your voice” to which the plaintiff replied “Am I talking to you”.

111 Constable Stebbing said “No, but I’m talking to you. This is a police officer you’re talking to. Please treat her with some respect”. The plaintiff answered “I’m treating her with respect”.

112 At that stage Constable Bergamin walked away.

113 After referring to his notebook to refresh his memory, Constable Stebbing said that after the plaintiff responded that he did treat the constable with respect Stebbing said “I realise that sir but you’re being very loud and acting aggressive”.

114 At page 580 he gave the following evidence:-

BODOR: Q. What was the next thing that you recall being said and identify the speaker?
A. I said to him - I said to Mr Houda, "I understand that, sir, but you're being very loud and all I'm asking you is to settle down a little." After that, Mr Houda stepped into my personal space.

HIS HONOUR: Q. Stepped into what?
A. My personal space.

Q. What do you mean by "my" - and I emphasise the word "my" - "personal space"?
A. I regard a distance between about my fingertips to my shoulder as my personal space.

Q. And that's space that you own, do you?
A. Not space that I own.

Q. But you say "my personal space". What do you mean when you say "my"?
A. It's the space around me that I feel comfortable letting people that I know into.

Q. So if someone approaches you in that space, you regard that as your personal right to occupy and to eject anybody from, do you?
A. No, but if someone's in that space and I don't know them, or they're being hostile, I would regard that as - that makes me feel uncomfortable, I don't want them in there.

Q. Why not just say so? Why refer to it as "my personal space"?
A. It's just a figure of speech, I suppose.

Q. But don't you think it is a very insulting figure of speech to regard a piece of common space available to all members - all people nearby as your own personal space?
A. I've never really given it any thought, to be honest.

115 He said that the plaintiff came to about thirty or forty centimetres from him. He was aware that there was a pole somewhere behind him which he could not see and there were also chairs in the vicinity behind him.

116 Constable Stebbing said that he then raised his left hand and said “Can you please step away from me” because he did not want him to come any closer. He was then concerned that because of the plaintiff’s hostility he was going to assault him. The plaintiff replied “You stepped up to me. You step back”. Constable Stebbing responded “You’re acting like a goose. Just take a step back, take a step away from me”. The plaintiff replied “You stepped up to me. You move. This is how you talk to me.”

117 Constable Stebbing said that he took a small step back but the plaintiff was leaning forward from the waist towards him and had his chest puffed out. The plaintiff was shouting and Constable Stebbing said that his voice was getting louder because the plaintiff was not listening and he was trying to get through to him that he wanted him to step back. By this stage the plaintiff’s face was really red. He had a scowl on his face and was really angry.

118 Again Constable Stebbing asked the plaintiff to step back but the plaintiff said “Mate, you’re an idiot. You think you can do whatever you like just because you’re in that uniform”. At this stage the plaintiff was so angry that spit was building up on the sides of his mouth and it was starting to project and was hitting him on the face and shirt.

119 Constable Stebbing had his hand up in front of him as a defensive tactic because he feared that the plaintiff might move and take a swing at him. Constable Stebbing said “I don’t give a stuff just take a step back”. The plaintiff did not do so.

120 Constable Stebbing said “I am asking you as a police officer to take a step away from me” to which the plaintiff said “I don’t care, I don’t care at all”. Again Constable Stebbing asked him to take a step away to which he says the plaintiff replied “Fuck off you approached me.”

121 By this time the plaintiff was shouting and Constable Stebbing was shouting back at him. The constable then put his hand on the plaintiff’s chest but the plaintiff slapped his hand away.

122 Constable Stebbing said “You’re standing in my personal space. Step back or I’m going to push you back”. At that time he lifted his right hand up and the plaintiff picked both of his hands up and he slapped the constable’s hand away and pushed him in the chest. Constable Stebbing moved back but because he had already taken a step back he took all the weight on his right leg so that his body moved back but he did not step back.

123 Thereupon he told the plaintiff that he was under arrest for assaulting a police officer. Sergeant Bennett and Constable Van Akker then came across and told him that he was under arrest.

124 The plaintiff said “He pushed me first, he pushed me twice, this is bullshit”.

125 The plaintiff was waving his arms around and eventually they pushed him up against a wall and took hold of him and took him away.

126 As he was being restrained the plaintiff was calling out “This is shit. This is shit he assaulted me he pushed me twice. He pushed me first”.

127 Constable Stebbing said that he arrested the plaintiff because he had committed the offence of assaulting a police officer and that assault was comprised when he pushed him in the chest. He felt that the plaintiff then had to be removed from the situation because of his hostility. He could not leave him in the courthouse yelling and screaming.

128 He said that he had no opportunity to move away from the plaintiff before he was assaulted. He did not want to move backwards and his only path was forwards and that was where the plaintiff was. He did not want to move backwards because he did not know what was behind him. There were chairs there and he thought that he might fall over. He did not know what the plaintiff was going to do. He thought he was going to go out of control. He was out of control. He did not want to look behind him to see where he was going because he saw the plaintiff as a threat. He was the aggressive one and he (Stebbing) did not want to look away from him.

129 He agreed that on the 25th August 2000 he faxed a copy of his statement to Campsie to Constable Van Akker. He did this because he assumed the plaintiff was going to plead “not guilty” and he wanted them to do their statements.

130 He also agreed that he gave a copy of his statement to Constable Bergamin and to Constable McCabe before they had compiled their own statements.

131 After the plaintiff was arrested and whilst he was still at Burwood Police Station Constable Campbell returned to the court and obtained the names, addresses and phone numbers of a number of people who had seen the incident. He wrote these in his notebook and gave a copy of the relevant pages to Constable Stebbing so that the latter could chase up these witnesses.

132 Details of the conversation between Constable Bergamin and the plaintiff to which Constable Stebbing said he was a party does not appear in his notebook. It does appear in Constable Bergamin’s notebook. He agreed that the dialogue of that conversation he put in his statement was markedly similar to that provided in Constable Bergamin’s notebook and when asked whether he agreed that he had a copy of Constable Bergamin’s notebook when he made his statement he said he may have but he could not remember.

133 The interesting thing is that the notations in Constable Bergamin’s notebook go up to one point and those in Constable Stebbing’s notebook continue from that point. The statements made from both of them cover both aspects in substantially identical terms.

Brett Van Akker.

134 He was a uniformed police officer standing in the lobby of the courthouse at the time of the incident. He was standing outside court 4 with Sergeant Bennett and Constable Campbell.

135 He saw Constables Stebbing and Bergamin speaking with the plaintiff and as the conversation continued he noticed that the voices were getting louder.

136 Constable Stebbing was facing towards the court door and standing on the tiled area with his back near a pillar. Constable Bergamin was to the side of Constable Stebbing. The plaintiff was standing in front of them facing towards the pillar. He was about a metre from them.

137 As mentioned earlier, he heard the three speaking together and some raised voices but the first he heard was Constable Stebbing say “Settle down and lower your voice” to the plaintiff. The plaintiff replied “What do you mean? I am treating her with respect”. Constable Stebbing replied “I know that, but you’re being a little aggressive. Can you lower your voice.”

138 At this stage he was five to seven metres from them.

139 He noticed that as the plaintiff stepped forwards towards Constable Stebbing he appeared to be angry, his face was flushed red and he appeared to be flared up, his chest was puffed out and he heard Constable Stebbing say “Step back away and settle down”.

140 The plaintiff then said “You think you can do what you want because you’re in that uniform”. Constable Stebbing said “Look settle down and step away from me”.

141 It was at that time that he believed that the conversation was quite heated and Constable Stebbing again said “Look, step away, you’re too close, step away from me.”

142 The plaintiff responded “You came up to me. I don’t care, You came up to me.” Stebbing said “Look at the way you’re acting. I’m asking you again to settle down and step away from me.” The plaintiff said “Fuck off. You approached me.”

143 At that time he saw Constable Stebbing raise his hands towards the plaintiff’s chest, place them on his chest and he saw the plaintiff slap the hands away and push Constable Stebbing back on the chest. Stebbing stepped backwards or stumbled backwards towards the pillar and thereupon he and Sergeant Bennett walked over to see if they could render some assistance. They walked over to them briskly and he heard Constable Stebbing say “You’re under arrest for assaulting a police officer”. The plaintiff responded “You can’t arrest me I’m a solicitor.”

144 Constable Van Akker then said “You’re under arrest. I’m effecting that arrest. Do you understand?” The plaintiff replied “What for he pushed me first and he swore at me first. He’s an idiot” or words along those lines.

145 The plaintiff pulled his arm away and said “I’m not going anywhere”. Constable Van Akker then took hold of him and said “You’re under arrest please don’t resist you can speak to the police involved at Burwood Police Station just calm down”. He was then taken away to the police station.

146 Constable Van Akker stated that he had the belief that the plaintiff had assaulted the constable and committed the offence. He was then questioned as to what gave him that belief (page 768):-

“A. Well I saw him strike and push the constable backwards.

Q. But on what you have just told me that was an immediate response to the constable putting his hands up on his chest?
A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. Well wouldn’t it occur to you that that was an act of reasonable self-defence?
A. In terms of moving the hands away?

Q. In terms of moving his hands away and then pushing him so as to prevent any further similar action.
A. Not in light of what had happened with the constable asking him to move away on a number of occasions and him failing to do so.

Q. Tell me, what was he doing that in your opinion justified Constable Stebbing to direct him to move away.
A. Well I can only say that he may have been causing fear, could have been.

Q. You did not see anything?
A. I certainly saw him standing in his face as though some sort of violence was going to commence.”

147 Constable Van Akker agreed that as the plaintiff was being escorted away he was saying words to the effect “Oh this is shit, he started it, he’s at fault, he swore.”

148 He could not recall seeing Constable Bergamin depart from the vicinity about the time that the plaintiff said “I am treating her with respect”. His recollection was that she was with them when he first glanced over to the location but could not say whether they were there all the time.

149 At page 784 he was asked:

Q. “Is it not the fact that if he had wished to, according to your observations, Stebbing could have taken steps backward around at least one of the sides of the pillar?
A. Yeah it’s possible that he could have done that yes.”

150 When sections of Stebbing’s statement were put to him in conjunction with corresponding sections of his own statement he agreed that they were substantially the same. He was then asked (page 794):-

“Q. Could those words be in your statement on account of being aided by the Stebbing statement?
A. It’s possible that I have read his statement and agreed that that was the conversation that took place.”

151 Constable Van Akker said that he could not recall having seen Constable Stebbing’s notebook.

Craig Bennett.

152 He was a sergeant of police and was present in the vestibule on the morning of 25 August 2000 waiting to give evidence in a case.

153 His attention was drawn to a conversation which he described as a “loud ruckus.” He heard words to the effect of “move back, settle down”.

154 He also heard the man in the suit (the plaintiff) say words to the effect of “I do respect her.” Stebbing said words to the effect of “lower your voice and settle down”.

155 Stebbing also said something like “You’re being very loud and aggressive. Lower your voice”.

156 At that stage the plaintiff and Constable Stebbing were within touching distance of each other.

157 He was focusing on those two people and was not aware of the movement of any other people.

158 He said that the plaintiff’s face was slightly red or he appeared to be flushed. He was taller than the constable both in stature and height. He was “animated”. He explained this by saying he noticed that the plaintiff pointed his finger towards the constable and he was lifting his arms around in a forceful manner. His arm was outstretched while the constable was moving back from him. He remembered the plaintiff saying words to the effect of “I am respecting her” and Stebbing saying words to the effect of “Move back. I am asking you to move back”. The plaintiff said “What for? You’re the idiot” or words like that. He also heard the plaintiff say “You think you can do whatever you like because you are wearing that uniform” or words to that effect.

159 After referring to his statement to refresh his memory he continued with his description of the conversation by saying that Stebbing said “Sir I am asking you as a police officer to stay away from me” to which the plaintiff replied “I don’t care you came up to me.” Stebbing then said “Sir look at the way you are acting I will ask you again to step away from me”. The plaintiff said “Fuck off, you approached me”.

160 During this exchange of words the volume of the conversation became louder.

161 He then said that Stebbing was moving back and put out one or both of his hands and asked the plaintiff to move back. He said that he remembered the plaintiff moving forwards toward Stebbing. Stebbing was moving backwards. He stumbled backwards and then he (Bennett) came in with other police. In that period Stebbing said you’re under arrest for assaulting a police officer.

162 The plaintiff said “You can’t arrest me. I’m a solicitor.”

163 Both of them were grabbing at each other Stebbing was moving back. Constables Van Akker and Campbell and he then moved in to effect the arrest. This was because Stebbing was stumbling backwards, had made an arrest and needed assistance.

164 He agreed that Mr Houda said words to the effect “He pushed me first” and “What for? He’s the idiot he started it. He swore at me first”.

165 Van Akker took hold of the plaintiff and told him he was under arrest again to which the plaintiff said “I’m not going anywhere”. Sergeant Bennett remembered the plaintiff bending over and he picked him up whilst he, the plaintiff, was shaking around. Sergeant Bennet said that he did not see Constable Stebbing advancing on the plaintiff and pushing him backwards.

166 At page 814 he was questioned as to the reasons for the joining in the arrest of the plaintiff as follows

Q. Did you see Stebbing’s hand touch the chest of Houda?
A. I can’t recall whether it touched Mr Houda or not.

Q. Did you consider that the assault for which Stebbing informed Houda he was arresting him was the pushing of Stebbing’s hand away by Houda?
A. No I considered the arrest by Stebbing when Stebbing put his hand his outstretched hand to warn Mr Houda to move back.

Q. Did you consider that Stebbing was arresting Houda because he didn’t move back?
A. Because he told him to move back from his personal space and Mr Houda moved Stebbing’s hand away and continued to move forward on to Stebbing.

Q. Those were the facts on which you understood Stebbing was arresting Houda is that right?
A. Yes.

167 At page 815 he was asked

Q. Do you really say that you have a recollection of the constable losing balance and stumbling backwards being caused by Houda pushing the constable’s hand away?
A. I remember Stebbing moving backwards after his hand was pushed away.

168 At page 816 he was asked

Q. Did you see in fact Stebbing push out with his hand and push the chest of Houda?
A. No.

Q. Did you see Stebbing push out with two hands and push the chest of Houda?
A. No.

169 Sergeant Bennett agreed that in his notebook shortly after the arrest he recorded the words “The constable and the solicitor began to push at each other.” That was not included in his statement.

Sean Paul Campbell.

170 He was present at the court with Sergeant Bennett and Constable Van Akker for the purpose of giving evidence in another case.

171 He saw the plaintiff, Constable Stebbing and Constable Bergamin standing near each other. The men were within a metre of each other and he could hear some conversation from them.

172 He heard Constable Stebbing say to the plaintiff words to the effect of “Settle down” to which the plaintiff replied “What do you mean I am treating her with respect” and Constable Stebbing said words to the effect of “Sir settle down I understand that but you are being very loud and aggressive”.

173 The plaintiff then leaned forward and said to Constable Stebbing “You’re an idiot you think you can do whatever you want with that uniform on”.

174 Constable Stebbing replied with words to the effect “Sir I’m asking you as a police officer to step away from me”. The plaintiff replied with words to the effect of “I don’t care you came up to me”.

175 Stebbing then said words to the effect of “Sir look at the way you are acting - settle down.”

176 Constable Stebbing raised his hands in an open palm manner and moved them toward the plaintiff. He thought that his hands did come into contact with the plaintiff.

177 Thereupon the plaintiff knocked the constable’s hands down with his right hand. He said words to the effect of “Fuck off you approached me.”

178 Stebbing then said words to the effect of “Sir you’re in my personal space. Move back or I’ll push you back”. Constable Stebbing then raised his hands in an open palm manner towards the plaintiff and may or may have not have come into contact with the plaintiff’s chest.

179 Again the plaintiff knocked the constable’s hands down. Immediately afterwards the plaintiff pushed Constable Stebbing in the upper chest with both hands. Constable Stebbing stumbled backwards several steps before regaining his balance.

180 Constable Stebbing then said to the plaintiff “You’re under arrest for assaulting a police officer”. The plaintiff replied with words to the effect of “You can’t arrest me I’m a solicitor”.

181 At that stage Constable Van Akker, Sergeant Bennet and Constable Campbell moved towards the incident. Constable Van Akker took hold of the plaintiff’s left arm saying words to the effect of “You’re under arrest. I’m effecting that arrest”. The plaintiff responded with words to the effect of “This is shit. He’s an idiot he started it, he came up to me.”

182 Stebbing, Sergeant Bennett, Constable Van Akker and Constable Campbell then walked with Stebbing and the plaintiff to the police station.

183 After a few minutes Constable Campbell left the station and returned to Burwood Local Court in order to obtain details of witnesses to the earlier events.

184 He obtained some information which he noted in his notebook and then returned to Burwood Police Station. He gave a copy of those details to Constable Stebbing. Back at Burwood Police Station he started to write in his note book his narrative of what had occurred earlier. He did not complete the narrative then because he was due back at court to give evidence on another matter. He continued writing the narrative at Burwood court house but did not finish it there because he was called to give evidence.

185 He finished it later in the day at Campsie Police Station which was then his normal working headquarters.

186 His statement which is dated 30 August 2000 is in fact the second statement he prepared and it was completed well after that date. He destroyed the first statement.

187 His evidence was that the only differences between the two statements were the correction of some spelling errors. He also agreed that in his notebook he made an entry following the conversation “Step away from me” that “The constable raised his hands in an open palm manner and placed them on Houda’s chest”. He agreed that the words “and placed them on Houda’s chest” which appear in the notebook do not appear in the statement. He denied that that was a deliberate omission from the statement.

Jo Anne Maree McCabe .

188 Her evidence was that originally she was standing by herself and saw Constable Stebbing a short distance away so she went over and started talking to him.

189 She said that she did not have much of an independent recollection of conversations but did of actions. She said that she started to prepare her statement dated 27 August 2000 on that date but could not recall when she completed it. The entries in her notebook were completed somewhere between 25 and 27 August.

505 The conduct of Constable Stebbing clearly comes within the phrase highhanded conduct in contumelious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

506 The plaintiff himself did not in any way contribute to the shocking treatment which was visited upon him.

507 Under these circumstances I assess exemplary damages in the sum of $25,000.

508 It is appreciated that Constable Stebbing is no longer a defendant in the case but that the State of New South Wales is. However by statute the State is vicariously liable for the wrongs of Constable Stebbing.

509 Accordingly I find in favour of the plaintiff in the total sum of $145,000.

510 I was requested by counsel not to make any orders in relation to interest or costs until they had had the opportunity to make further submissions. As a result I shall invite counsel to make submissions on those issues.

FORMAL ORDERS

511 I make the following orders:-

i. Judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant on each of the causes of action pleaded.

ii. I assess damages as follows:-

1. Compensatory damages $100,000.00

2. Aggravated damages $20,000.00

3. Exemplary damages $25,000.00

4. Total $ 145,000.00

iii. I invite submissions on the questions of interest and costs.

**********