HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Lewis v Australian Capital Territory |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 19 |
Hearing Dates: | 15, 16 and 17 February 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 16 February 2018 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. There be judgment for Steven James Lewis in the sum of $1.00. 2. Unless any party applies by written submission within seven days for any other order, each party pay their own costs. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – Periodic detention – cancellation of offenders order – loss of liberty – inquiry into whether offender’s periodic detention obligations breached – legislation creating regime for automatic cancellation of periodic detention for failure to attend for periods held valid – offender not afforded procedural fairness – offender ultimately not required to serve balance of sentence either as periodic detention or full-time imprisonment – Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) TORTS – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – Damages – general damages for false imprisonment – public law damages – diminished reputation pleaded – economic impact of false imprisonment – aggravated damages – quantum of damages – nominal damages CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS – Unlawful arrest or detention – compensation for – whether award of damages for statutory right should include both compensation and vindication – public law remedy – s 18(7) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) |
Legislation Cited: | Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 17(1)(a) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT), s 17(1)(a) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 4, 19, 37U(2) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 417, 1619, 3503, 3553, 3554, 3560 Parole Ordinance 1976 (ACT) Australian Constitution, Ch III Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms International Covenant on Civil and… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lewis v Australian Capital Territory and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in the case centred around the validity of the Board's decision to cancel the periodic detention order and the subsequent unlawful detention of Lewis. The Court had to consider the common law principles of false imprisonment and whether the Board's decision constituted a breach of Lewis's rights under the Human Rights Act. The Court also had to consider the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to Lewis for the unlawful detention he suffered.
The Court found that the Board's decision to cancel the periodic detention order was unlawful for failure to afford procedural fairness. However, because Lewis was ultimately not required to serve any further time in custody, the Court awarded him only nominal damages of $1.00 for the false imprisonment claim. The Court also considered the claim under the Human Rights Act and found that the award of damages should include both compensation and vindication of Lewis's rights. The Court awarded Lewis damages of $1.00, with each party to bear their own costs unless a party applied for a different order within seven days.
In summary, the Court found in favour of Lewis, awarding him nominal damages of $1.00 for the false imprisonment claim and damages under the Human Rights Act. The Court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in decision-making processes and the need to respect individual rights and freedoms. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that decisions affecting individual liberty are made in accordance with the law and with proper regard for procedural fairness.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. There be judgment for Steven James Lewis in the sum of $1.00.
2. Unless any party applies by written submission within seven days for any other order, each party pay their own costs.
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
On 24 January 2008, he was, on his plea of guilty, sentenced in the ACT Magistrates Court to a term of 12 months imprisonment but, under s 59 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentence Administration Act), as it then stood, the Court, by order, set the whole of the term to be served by periodic detention, a sentencing disposition since abolished in the ACT. The sentence of periodic detention required Mr Lewis to serve a period of custody each weekend from early Friday evening to late Sunday afternoon during the 12 months sentence. Mr Lewis failed to attend on a number of weekends. At that time, the Sentence Administration Board (the Board) had power, and was required, to cancel the periodic detention order if an offender failed, without reasonable excuse, to attend for detention on two or more occasions. As a result of Mr Lewis failing to attend as required on more than two occasions, the Board held a hearing on 8 July 2008 and cancelled the periodic detention order. As a result, Mr Lewis was required to serve the balance of the period of imprisonment in full-time custody. A warrant was issued and, on 5 January 2009, Mr Lewis was arrested and commenced serving the balance of the sentence of imprisonment. Mr Lewis commenced proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the decision of the Board and, on 27 March 2009, was released on bail, having served 82 days in full-time custody following the Board’s cancellation of the periodic detention order. The Court, when releasing Mr Lewis, was not asked to stay the sentence and did not do so. The challenge Mr Lewis made to the decision of the Board was ultimately successful when I decided that the Board had not accorded Mr Lewis procedural fairness: Lewis v Chief Executive of Department of Justice and Community Safety of the Australian Capital Territory [2013] ACTSC 198; 280 FLR 118 (Lewis (No 1)). Mr Lewis was ultimately not required to serve the balance of the sentence of imprisonment either as periodic detention or in full-time custody: Australian Capital Territory v Lewis [2016] ACTCA 34; 311 FLR 77 (Lewis (No 3)). Mr Lewis has now sought damages as compensation for the 82 days he spent in custody as a result of the decision of the Board, which decision was found to be invalid. Mr Lewis’s claim for damages and compensation is based on two grounds, the first being a common law action for false imprisonment, and the second being a claim for compensation under s 18(7) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (Human Rights Act). Mr Lewis commenced two proceedings on 25 March 2009, both challenging the decision of the Board and his consequent imprisonment. The first of these proceedings were taken against the Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Board. That resulted in the decision in Lewis (No 1). These proceedings are the second of those proceedings and were taken against the Territory. In these proceedings, in addition to orders challenging the validity of the decision of the Board and its consequences, Mr Lewis seeks orders under the Human Rights Act, including an order in the nature of certiorari, and damages.