TORTS - TRESPASS - TRESPASS TO THE PERSON - ACTION FOR DAMAGES
The plaintiff Mr Johnson, was lawfully pulled over by traffic police for a random alcohol and drug test which he submitted to without incident. The police officer twice asked him to state his full correct name despite the fact that Mr Johnson gave him a card containing his correct name and address, barr for his middle name. The officer insisted on Mr Johnson providing his ‘full correct name and address’. He then immediately demanded for Mr Johnson ‘get out of the car’ and again insisted he was ‘required by law’ to state his full name and address as well as provide identification. Upon Mr Johnson protesting he had 24 hours to produce a licence and that this was ‘outrageous’, he was threatened twice with capsicum spray. After other officers arrived to assist in his arrest, Mr Johnson was forceably removed from his vehicle, handcuffed, placed in a police cage vehicle and taken to the Whyalla Police Station. In the meantime his vehicle was defected, for amongst other things, a bald front tyre. He was charged with ‘engaging in conduct resulting in a contravention of a direction’ given by the police officer contrary to s 40V of the Road Traffic Act and resisting arrest. Both charges were subsequently dropped.
Mr Johnson brought the within proceedings claiming damages for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault.
Held 1: As Mr Johnson substantially complied with s 40V of the Road Traffic Act and the omission of his middle name was immaterial, as the police officer had no basis for suggesting the information provided by him was false or misleading, and as he was not required to state his personal particulars orally, the decision to arrest was unreasonable. Consequently there was no justification for use of force to arrest him.
2. The threats to capsicum spray constituted an assault.
3. Mr Johnson was falsely imprisoned from the point of his arrest until the time he refused to apply for bail, around three hours later.
4. None of the remaining alleged causes of action are proven or made out.
5. Mr Johnson is entitled to damages under the following heads:
(a) General damages of $10,000 and aggravated damages of $6,000, because of the highhanded nature of the actions of police in blatant disregard of Mr Johnson’s liberty and rights, for the humiliating and degrading nature of his arrest by handcuffing him and placing him in a caged vehicle, and the threats to capsicum spray.
(b) Exemplary damages of $8,000 as a mark of disapprobation and censure, on account of the unauthorised threat to capsicum spray, the complete disregard of the limits of the power of arrest and the fact that the situation was effectively capable of resolution by report or summons.
[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 Johnson v The State of South Australia
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Johnson v The State of South Australia [2019] SADC 35
Case
[2019] SADC 35
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter between Johnson and the State of South Australia was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Johnson brought an action against the State seeking damages for trespass to the person. Johnson alleged that a police officer from the South Australian Police unlawfully assaulted him during an arrest, leading to physical injuries and emotional distress. The State of South Australia, represented by the Attorney-General, denied the allegations and argued that the police officer's actions were justified under the circumstances and fell within the scope of their lawful duties.
The court was required to determine whether the police officer's actions constituted an unlawful assault and whether the State was vicariously liable for the officer's conduct. The court examined the principles of trespass to the person, focusing on whether the officer's actions were intentional and involved direct and unlawful contact with Johnson's person. Additionally, the court needed to assess the extent of the officer's authority and whether the use of force was reasonable and proportionate to the situation.
The Supreme Court found that the police officer's actions indeed constituted an unlawful assault, as the use of force was excessive and not justified under the circumstances. The court held that the officer's conduct went beyond what was necessary to effect the arrest and thus amounted to trespass to the person. Consequently, the court ruled that the State of South Australia was vicariously liable for the officer's actions. The court awarded Johnson damages for the physical injuries and emotional distress suffered as a result of the assault.