LSA v State of Queensland - [2024] QSC 102

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

LSA v State of Queensland [2024] QSC 102

PARTIES:

LSA

(plaintiff)

v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 1253 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13–17 November 2023, 30 November 2023. Further review on 9 February 2024. Further written submissions filed on 1 March 2024 and 7 March 2024. Further application heard on 8 March 2024.

JUDGE:

Cooper J

ORDER:

The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION – ARREST AND DETENTION AND IMPRISONMENT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiff brought a number of claims alleging that officers of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) acted unlawfully towards him in the context of the QPS investigating the plaintiff for numerous offences – where the plaintiff alleges that his former partner was a covert police officer and that there existed a conspiracy orchestrated by the QPS to murder the plaintiff, which his former partner was involved in – where the plaintiff submitted that there was a finding in a decision of the District Court, which the plaintiff was a party to, that the plaintiff’s former partner had been involved in a conspiracy to murder the plaintiff – where the plaintiff was investigated for weapons offences arising out of the storage of a rifle in a shed rented by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff was investigated for domestic violence offending which arose in the context of the plaintiff accusing his former partner of being involved in the police locating his rifle at the rented shed – where police subsequently located the plaintiff in the carpark of the hospital that his former partner was staying at due to injuries inflicted on her by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff accompanied police to Fortitude Valley police station and there police issued him a police protection notice – where the plaintiff’s former partner subsequently alleged that the plaintiff breached the police protection notice by attempting to contact and come near her on two occasions – where, on the second occasion, the plaintiff was arrested for contravening the conditions of the police protection notice, for which he pleaded guilty and was fined – where the plaintiff pleads that he was falsely imprisoned when he accompanied police to the Fortitude Valley police station and was issued with a protection order, and when he was arrested for two contraventions of his police protection notice – where the plaintiff claims that when he arrived at the Fortitude Valley police station, he felt compelled to not move from the seat he was directed to – where the plaintiff attended the police station voluntarily – where, on the second occasion, the plaintiff was arrested and detained for contravening his police protection notice conditions – where the plaintiff alleged that he was falsely imprisoned on the second occasion because, for various reasons, the police protection notice was…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read LSA v State of Queensland 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QSC 102
Decision Date: 29 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of LSA v State of Queensland, the plaintiff, LSA, brought multiple claims against the Queensland Police Service (QPS) alleging unlawful conduct in relation to their investigation of the plaintiff for various offences. LSA claimed that his former partner, who he alleged was a covert police officer, was part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the QPS to murder him. He argued that the QPS unlawfully arrested and detained him, issued him a police protection notice, and engaged in collateral abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and negligence in their investigation of him. The court was required to determine whether LSA was falsely imprisoned, whether the police protection notice was validly issued, whether the QPS engaged in collateral abuse of process, whether the laying of the fraud charge against LSA constituted malicious prosecution, and whether the QPS owed LSA a duty of care in relation to their investigation of his complaints.

The court found that LSA had failed on each of his causes of action. The court held that there was no evidence to support LSA's claim that his former partner was a covert police officer or that there was a conspiracy to murder him. The court also found that LSA was not falsely imprisoned when he accompanied police to the Fortitude Valley police station or when he was arrested for contravening his police protection notice. The court held that the police protection notice was validly issued and that the QPS did not engage in collateral abuse of process, malicious prosecution, or negligence in their investigation of LSA. The court dismissed LSA's claim in its entirety.

The court dismissed LSA's claim and ordered that his claim be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant could not accept other corrections proposed by the plaintiff on the basis that it did not have access to the audio recording to satisfy itself that the proposed correction accurately reflected the audio recording. It was not necessary for me to resolve whether the proposed corrections which the defendant did not accept accurately reflected the audio recording of the trial. That is because, having reviewed the unaccepted corrections in the plaintiff’s schedule I am satisfied that those corrections, if made, would have no bearing on the conclusions I have reached. Conclusion The plaintiff has failed on each of his causes of action. His claim must be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	LSA v State of Queensland [2024] QSC 102
PARTIES:	LSA (plaintiff) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 1253 of 2021
DIVISION:	Trial division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13–17 November 2023, 30 November 2023. Further review on 9 February 2024. Further written submissions filed on 1 March 2024 and 7 March 2024. Further application heard on 8 March 2024.
JUDGE:	Cooper J
ORDER:	The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION – ARREST AND DETENTION AND IMPRISONMENT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiff brought a number of claims alleging that officers of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) acted unlawfully towards him in the context of the QPS investigating the plaintiff for numerous offences – where the plaintiff alleges that his former partner was a covert police officer and that there existed a conspiracy orchestrated by the QPS to murder the plaintiff, which his former partner was involved in – where the plaintiff submitted that there was a finding in a decision of the District Court, which the plaintiff was a party to, that the plaintiff’s former partner had been involved in a conspiracy to murder the plaintiff – where the plaintiff was investigated for weapons offences arising out of the storage of a rifle in a shed rented by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff was investigated for domestic violence offending which arose in the context of the plaintiff accusing his former partner of being involved in the police locating his rifle at the rented shed – where police subsequently located the plaintiff in the carpark of the hospital that his former partner was staying at due to injuries inflicted on her by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff accompanied police to Fortitude Valley police station and there police issued him a police protection notice – where the plaintiff’s former partner subsequently alleged that the plaintiff breached the police protection notice by attempting to contact and come near her on two occasions – where, on the second occasion, the plaintiff was arrested for contravening the conditions of the police protection notice, for which he pleaded guilty and was fined – where the plaintiff pleads that he was falsely imprisoned when he accompanied police to the Fortitude Valley police station and was issued with a protection order, and when he was arrested for two contraventions of his police protection notice – where the plaintiff claims that when he arrived at the Fortitude Valley police station, he felt compelled to not move from the seat he was directed to – where the plaintiff attended the police station voluntarily – where, on the second occasion, the plaintiff was arrested and detained for contravening his police protection notice conditions – where the plaintiff alleged that he was falsely imprisoned on the second occasion because, for various reasons, the police protection notice was…