Houston Moran v State of New South Wales - [2017] NSWDC 19

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Houston Moran v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWDC 19
Hearing dates: 8 and 9 February 2017
Date of orders: 17 February 2017
Decision date: 17 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff.
(2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $10,736.00.
Catchwords: Arrest – false imprisonment – s 99 (3) (a) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act –whether reasonable grounds – whether arrest “necessary” to ensure the appearance of the plaintiff before a Court
Legislation Cited: Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
Bail Act 1978, ss 15 (1) and 17 (1)
Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Robinson [2016] NSWCA 334
Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] 217 A Crim R 571; [2012] NSWCA 336
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Mathews-Hunter [2014] NSWCA 843
Tilse v State of New South Wales (2013) NSWDC 265
New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638; [2006] HCA 57
Coyle v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 95
State of New South Wales v Delly (2007) 70 NSWLR 125; [2007] NSWCA 303
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Houston Moran (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D. Woodbury/Mr E. James (Plaintiff)
Mr P. Saidi (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Konstan Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McCabes Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/00357063
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

On 8 April 2013 at approximately 6.45 p.m., the plaintiff, her mother, and the plaintiff’s friend, Ms Trojak, attended City Central Police Station, Sydney, in order to co-operate with police. The plaintiff had shortly beforehand been contacted on her mobile phone and invited by Senior Constable Rutter (then Constable Rutter) to come to the police station for a “chat”, concerning an incident earlier in the day (the Incident).
Upon informing the desk officer at the police station of her attendance, the plaintiff, her mother and Ms Trojak as they were directed to do, took a seat and waited. After some minutes, Senior Constable Rutter approached the plaintiff with Constable Howell whereupon, Constable Howell informed the plaintiff that she was under arrest and would be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Senior Constable Rutter being the senior of them had directed Constable Howell to voice the arrest (Day 1, Transcript page 45, line 46). The case was conducted on the basis that the arrest was made by Senior Constable Rutter.
By her Statement of Claim and as confirmed at hearing (Day 1, Transcript page 16, lines 11 to 30), the plaintiff proceeded only for breach of s 99 (3) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA) in her claim for damages including aggravated and exemplary damages for false imprisonment and trespass/assault to person. The sole defence raised by the State of New South Wales (the State) is that pursuant to s 99 (3) (a) LEPRA, the plaintiff was lawfully arrested by Senior Constable Rutter, he…

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 Houston Moran v State of New South Wales

Details

AGLC: Houston Moran v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWDC 19
Case: [2017] NSWDC 19
Decision Date: 17 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Houston Moran, sued the State of New South Wales for false imprisonment. The arrest in question occurred under section 99 (3) (a) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. The crux of the dispute centred on whether the arresting officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest was necessary to ensure the plaintiff's appearance before a court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court needed to determine whether the arresting officers possessed reasonable grounds for the arrest, and if the arrest was truly necessary to guarantee the plaintiff's presence before the court. This required an examination of the evidence provided by the police, including the circumstances leading up to the arrest and the officers' state of mind. The court also needed to assess the proportionality of the arrest in relation to the potential alternatives available to ensure the plaintiff's attendance in court.

The court found that the arresting officers did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest was necessary for the plaintiff's appearance before the court. The evidence indicated that the officers' actions were not proportionate to the circumstances, and that alternative measures could have been employed. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment was upheld, and the court awarded damages of $10,736.00 to the plaintiff.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $10,736.00, reflecting the harm suffered due to the unlawful arrest. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that law enforcement officers adhere to the legal standards when making arrests and the necessity of having reasonable grounds for such actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff.

(2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $10,736.00.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Houston Moran v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWDC 19
Hearing dates:	8 and 9 February 2017
Date of orders:	17 February 2017
Decision date:	17 February 2017
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Montgomery DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff. (2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $10,736.00.
Catchwords:	Arrest – false imprisonment – s 99 (3) (a) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act –whether reasonable grounds – whether arrest “necessary” to ensure the appearance of the plaintiff before a Court
Legislation Cited:	Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) Bail Act 1978, ss 15 (1) and 17 (1)
Cases Cited:	State of New South Wales v Robinson [2016] NSWCA 334 Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] 217 A Crim R 571; [2012] NSWCA 336 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Mathews-Hunter [2014] NSWCA 843 Tilse v State of New South Wales (2013) NSWDC 265 New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638; [2006] HCA 57 Coyle v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 95 State of New South Wales v Delly (2007) 70 NSWLR 125; [2007] NSWCA 303
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Houston Moran (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D. Woodbury/Mr E. James (Plaintiff) Mr P. Saidi (Defendant) Solicitors: Konstan Lawyers (Plaintiff) McCabes Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2015/00357063
Publication restriction:	None