John Lawrence Coffey v State of Queensland

[2013] HCASL 79

JOHN LAWRENCE COFFEY

v

STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS

[2013] HCASL 79
B6/2013

1. On 5 March 2001, the applicant, who was an inmate of Lotus Glen Correctional Centre, was injured during the course of a DNA sampling procedure.  In order to take a hair sample from the applicant, corrective service officers forced him to the ground knocking him unconscious, causing a gash above one eye.  A sample of up to 239 strands of hair was pulled from his head.  The applicant made several claims against the respondents, including breach of duty of care, breach of statutory duty of care, assault, battery and false imprisonment.  The applicant also claimed malicious prosecution following unsuccessful proceedings commenced against him by the third respondent for allegedly refusing to provide a DNA sample using a mouth swab on that day.

2. The Supreme Court of Queensland (Henry J) delivered judgment for the applicant in respect of the claim of battery against the first respondent for $28,000.  His Honour found that the force used was not reasonably necessary and that consequently, the applicant had proved battery by the corrective service officers, for which the first respondent was vicariously liable.  It was further found that Senior Constable Mientjes (the second respondent) did not direct the corrective services officers to apply force as they did.  The applicant further alleged that he had been beaten prior to entering the room where the events were recorded on camera.  This further allegation was rejected.

3. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Holmes JA; McMurdo P and White JA agreeing) found that the trial judge had erred in awarding inadequate exemplary damages.  Judgment against the first respondent was increased to $43,628.80.  The Court further found the second respondent liable for a minor battery when he placed his foot on one of the applicant's legs while he was lying unconscious on the floor.  The second respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $600 by way of damages in respect of this battery.   

4. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court using similar grounds advanced in the Court of Appeal, and additional grounds relating to the procedures leading up to the taking of the sample.  The additional grounds raise issues of fact resolved against the applicant in the courts below.  No question of principle falls for determination in respect of the other grounds advanced by the applicant. In particular, no error in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal is identified.  Any appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.  Special leave should be refused.

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
   
   

S.M. Kiefel
5 June 2013 P.A. Keane