Strano v Australian Capital Territory - [2016] ACTSC 4

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Strano v Australian Capital Territory
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 4
Hearing Dates:	19 and 20 October 2015
DecisionDate:	2 February 2016
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. The plaintiff’s claim was filed outside the applicable limitation period. 2. The parties will be heard on the orders necessary to give effect to this conclusion.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – Supreme Court procedure – claim for compensation for unlawful detention – application to strike out – detention arising from imprisonment imposed by Magistrate for offence where no penalty of imprisonment available – whether detention unlawful – whether claim statute-barred. HUMAN RIGHTS – claim for compensation for unlawful detention made under Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 18(7) – whether s 18(7) creates a statutory cause of action separate from tort of false imprisonment. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL – claim for compensation for unlawful detention made under Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) – claim filed more than seven years after release from custody –whether claim arising under Human Rights Act accrues later than common law claim for false imprisonment – whether limitation provisions can be interpreted under Human Rights Act to allow extended period for filing claim – whether extended limitation period for actions for relief from consequences of mistake applies where imprisonment resulted from mistake by sentencing Magistrate.
Legislation Cited:	Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 18, 18(1), 18(3), 18(4)(b), 18(6), 18(7), 23, 30, 40B, 40C, 40C(3), 40C(4), Part 5A Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)), s 34 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), ss 11, 16B, 138 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 34, 50C, 50D, 50D(1)(c), 56 Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), ss 11, 16B, 33, 33(1), 34 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 425
Cases Cited:	Burow v The Queen (2015) ACTCA 61 Harrison v Melhem (2008) 72 NSWLR 380 Morroand Ors v Australian Capital Territory (2009) 234 FLR 71 Project Blue Sky v ABA (1998) 194 CLR 355 Re application for bail by Islam (2010) 4 ACTLR 235 Ruddock and Ors v Taylor (2005) 222 CLR 612 Simpson v Attorney General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 Sinclair v Registrar-General [2010] NSWSC 173 State ofNew South Wales v Gillett [2012] NSWCA 83
Texts Cited:	International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966,999 UNTS 171 (opened for signature 16 December 1966, entered into force 28 January 1993)
Parties:	Salvatore Strano (Plaintiff) Australian Capital Territory (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Crispin (Plaintiff) Mr P Garrisson SC and Ms V Austen (Defendant)
Solicitors John O’Keefe (Plaintiff) ACT Government Solicitor (Defendant)
File Number:	SC 308 of 2014

Introduction

Salvatore Strano claims compensation from the ACT for what he says was unlawful imprisonment for a period of three months in 2005. The defendant (the Territory) has made an application under r 425 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) for judgment to be…

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 Strano 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

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: [2016] ACTSC 4
Decision Date: 2 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Strano v Australian Capital Territory involved a claim by Mr Strano for compensation for unlawful detention. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Strano argued that his detention was unlawful as it arose from an imprisonment imposed by a Magistrate for an offence for which there was no penalty of imprisonment available. The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the detention was indeed unlawful and, if so, whether the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

The court examined whether section 18(7) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) created a separate statutory cause of action for compensation for unlawful detention, distinct from the common law tort of false imprisonment. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the limitation period for claims under the Human Rights Act could be interpreted to allow an extended period for filing claims, particularly when the imprisonment resulted from a mistake by the sentencing Magistrate.

The court found that the claim for compensation was indeed filed outside the applicable limitation period. It held that the claim for compensation arising under the Human Rights Act accrued at the same time as a common law claim for false imprisonment. The court concluded that the limitation provisions could not be interpreted to allow an extended period for filing claims under the Human Rights Act in this context. Consequently, the claim was statute-barred.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim was filed outside the applicable limitation period and that the parties would be heard on the orders necessary to give effect to this conclusion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s claim was filed outside the applicable limitation period.

2. The parties will be heard on the orders necessary to give effect to this conclusion.

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.