District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Munro v State of NSW [2019] NSWDC 13 Hearing dates: 5, 6, 7 & 8 March 2018 (Last submissions 11 May 2018) Date of orders: 15 February 2019 Decision date: 15 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Judge Levy SC Decision: 1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $38,206 including pre-judgment interest;
2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
3. The exhibits may be returned;
4. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.Catchwords: TORTS – intentional torts – claims of alleged wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery – whether claims made out; DAMAGES – assessment of general compensatory damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and interest Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 52, s 54, s 58,
Crown Proceedings Act 1988 (NSW), s 5
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), s 99(1), s 201, s 202, s 231
Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW), s 8
Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 6Cases Cited: Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573
Coyle v State of NSW [2006] NSWCA 95
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] 170 CLR 104
Hage-Ali v State of NSW [2009] NSWDC 266
MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657; [1991] HCA 3
McKinney v R [1991] 171 CLR 468
NSW v Radford [2010] NSWCA 276
Smith v State of NSW [2016] NSWDC 55
State of New South Wales v Smith [2017] NSWCA 194
State of NSW (NSW Police) v Nominal Defendant [2009] NSWCA 225
State of NSW v Abed [2014] NSWCA 419
State of NSW v Coleman [2000] NSWCA 183
State of NSW v Quirk [2012] NSWCA 216
State of NSW v Riley (2003) 57 NSWLR 496; [2003] NSWCA 208
State of NSW v Zreika [2012] NSWCA 37
Williams v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278; [1986] HCA 88
Zavarinos v State of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 320Category: Principal judgment Parties: Scott Brenden Edwin Munro (Plaintiff)
The State of New South Wales (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr D Toomey SC with Mr D Woodbury (Plaintiff)
Ms J Chapman (Defendant)
MJO Legal (Plaintiff)
McCabes (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2017/212260 Publication restriction: A non-publication order remains in place with respect to the content of the evidence appearing between transcript reference T30.18 to T33.28
Judgment
Table of Contents
Nature of case
[1]
Non-publication order
[2]
Factual background
[3] – [14]
Issues
[15] – [16]
Concessions by defendant and claimed defences
[17] – [20]
Credibility and reliability of testimony
[21] – [56]
Ms Tayla Luscombe
[22] – [23]
Ms Regina Burke
[24]
The plaintiff
[25] – [35]
Senior Constable Nolan
[36] – [40]
Senior Constable Ward
[41] – [56]
Facts
[57] – [147]
(1) Plaintiff’s background circumstances
[58]
(2) Plaintiff’s relationship with Ms Luscombe
[59] – [65]
(3) Plaintiff’s domestic situation at time of arrest
[66] – [68]
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Munro v State of NSW 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
- [2019] NSWDC 13
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the claims of wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and battery were substantiated and, if so, what the appropriate compensatory damages should be. The court also needed to consider whether Munro was entitled to aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as pre-judgment interest.
The court found that the plaintiff’s claims of wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and battery were substantiated. The evidence presented demonstrated that the police officers had acted beyond the scope of their authority and used excessive force. The court awarded Munro general compensatory damages for the physical and psychological injuries sustained, along with aggravated damages to reflect the distress and humiliation suffered. The court also awarded exemplary damages to deter similar conduct in the future and pre-judgment interest on the damages awarded. Ultimately, the court determined that the total amount of damages to be paid to Munro was $38,206, including pre-judgment interest.
In its judgment, the court ordered that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered. The court also allowed for the return of the exhibits and gave liberty to apply on seven days’ notice if further or other orders were required.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $38,206 including pre-judgment interest;
2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
3. The exhibits may be returned;
4. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.
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.