CITATION: TD v STATE OF NSW [2010] NSWSC 368 HEARING DATE(S): Monday 15 March 2010
JUDGMENT DATE :
30 April 2010JURISDICTION: Common Law JUDGMENT OF: Hall J at 1 DECISION: Subject to short minutes of order, there is to be an order that the question of liability based on the plaintiff's pleaded cause of action in wrongful imprisonment is determined in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. CATCHWORDS: TORT – WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT – mentally ill person dealt with by way of a special hearing under s.19 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 – a “limiting term” nominated under s.23 of the Act – whether the limiting term deprived the plaintiff of her right to liberty – s.24 order for plaintiff’s custody an interim order – order made by District Court under s.27 for the plaintiff’s detention “in a hospital” – “hospital” had the meaning prescribed by s.3 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 and s.208 of the Mental Health Act 1990 – plaintiff not detained in a “hospital” as required by order made under s.27 – detention unlawful and infringed her rights – separate question as to liability of State for wrongful imprisonment answered in the plaintiff’s favour against the State. LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Limitation Act 1969
Mental Health Act 1990
Mental Health Act 2007
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Protected Estates Act 1983CASES CITED: Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 219 CLR 486
Cobbett v Grey (1849) 4 Ex 729
Collins v Downs (Roden J, unreported, 14December 1982)
Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia [2000] FCA 1084
Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 1213
Mailes v Director of Public Prosecutions & Mental Health Review Tribunal [2006] NSWSC 267
Regina v Adams (2003) 58 NSWLR 1
Regina v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239
Regina v AN (No 2) (2006) 66 NSWLR 523
Regina v Boyle (Mathews, J, 18 September 1992, unreported)
Regina v Deputy-Governor of Parkhurst Prison, ex parte Hague [1992] 1 AC 58
Regina v Governor of Brockhill Prison; ex parte Evans (No 2) [2000] 3 WLR 843
Regina v Tas (District Court, Keleman DCJ, 1 October 1997, unreported)
Ruddock v Taylor [2005] HCA 48
Watson v Marshall & Cade (1971) 12 CLR 612PARTIES: TD v
STATE OF NSWFILE NUMBER(S): SC 289362/08 COUNSEL: P: T A Game SC/A P Naylor
D: G P Craddock SC/S A BeckettSOLICITORS: P: S O'Connor
D: I V Knight
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
HALL J
FRIDAY 30 APRIL 2010
08/289362
TD v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WLAES
JUDGMENT
(1) IntroductionHIS HONOUR:
1 In these proceedings against the State of New South Wales (“the State”), the plaintiff claims damages for wrongful imprisonment and, in the alternative, for assault and/or battery and trespass to the person. The factual…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read TD 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
- [2010] NSWSC 368
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues centred on the interpretation of the terms "limiting term" and "hospital" within the context of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 and the Mental Health Act 1990. The court had to decide if the limiting term imposed on TD's detention effectively deprived her of her liberty and whether her placement in a facility not recognised as a "hospital" under the Act resulted in an unlawful infringement of her rights. Additionally, the court examined the State's liability for wrongful imprisonment.
The court concluded that the limiting term did not, in itself, deprive TD of her liberty as it was intended to restrict her freedom of movement rather than to detain her. However, the court found that TD's detention in a facility not designated as a "hospital" under the Act constituted an unlawful deprivation of her liberty. The court ruled that TD's detention was unlawful and infringed her rights. Regarding the State's liability for wrongful imprisonment, the court found in favour of TD against the State.
The court ordered the State to compensate TD for the wrongful imprisonment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.