SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Monaghan v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 352 |
Hearing Dates: | 12 – 14 October 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 30 November 2016 |
Before: | Mossop AsJ |
Decision: | See [261] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – BAIL – Variation of bail conditions – Whether subject of bail is required to sign a further undertaking or notice to make variation of conditions of bail effective – Significance of written undertaking to appear and comply with any conditions – Variation to conditions becomes effective upon an order being made by the Court – Plaintiff did not have to sign a notice of variation TORTS – Negligence – Failure by Registry staff to provide accurate information to Australian Federal Police about bail conditions – Whether ACT breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff – Whether damages arising from detention of plaintiff recoverable in cause of action in negligence – Extent to which Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 35 precludes award of damages arising from detention HUMAN RIGHTS – Compensation – Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 18(7) – Whether s 18(7) provides freestanding cause of action – Whether plaintiff entitled to compensation for being arrested and detained – Whether plaintiff entitled to compensation greater than awarded in common law claim |
Legislation Cited: | Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth), ss 8(1)(a), 8(1A), 64B Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 28, 33, 49, 56A Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), ss 127, 142, 245, 247, 250 |
Cases Cited: | Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Limited v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258; (2009) 75 NSWLR 649 Coyle v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 95 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Monaghan v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) 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
- [2016] ACTSC 352
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the variation to the conditions of bail became effective upon the court making an order, and the plaintiff did not have to sign a notice of variation. Regarding the negligence claim, the court found that the ACT did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as the police were independent contractors and there was no direct relationship between the ACT and the plaintiff. In relation to damages arising from detention, the court held that the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 35 precluded the award of damages for detention. Concerning the human rights claim, the court concluded that s 18(7) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) did not provide a freestanding cause of action for compensation, and the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation greater than that awarded in the common law claim.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims in their entirety, and the plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge was correct in his assessment of the evidence and that there was no basis for the plaintiff to be awarded damages for negligence, breach of human rights, or compensation under s 18(7) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Supreme Court were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [261]
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.