Trobridge v Hardy

This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia regarding an action brought by a taxi-cab proprietor (the appellant) against a police constable (the respondent) for assault, malicious arrest, and wrongful imprisonment. The dispute arose from the constable's arrest of the taxi-cab proprietor, who was subsequently charged with refusing to give his name and address, a charge of which he was later acquitted. The constable sought to rely on statutory protection afforded by paragraph H of the Second Schedule to the *Interpretation Act 1918-1948* (W.A.), which limits actions against police officers for acts done in carrying out the provisions of the *Police Act 1892-1953* (W.A.), unless there is direct proof of corruption or malice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the constable's actions were taken in "carrying the provisions of the Police Act into effect" within the meaning of the statutory protection, and if so, whether there was "direct proof of malice" against the taxi-cab proprietor. The constable argued that he genuinely suspected the proprietor of an offence and acted in good faith, thus falling within the protective provisions of the *Interpretation Act*. The proprietor contended that the constable's conduct was not a genuine attempt to enforce the law but rather an abuse of power motivated by personal animosity.

The court found that the constable's actions were not done in carrying the *Police Act* into effect. This was because his conduct was not motivated by an honest intention to enforce the law but rather by a desire to punish the taxi-cab proprietor for a perceived slight or affront. The evidence indicated that the constable acted with excessive force and humiliation, even after the proprietor had complied with the request for his name and address and when there was no reasonable grounds for suspicion or arrest. Therefore, the statutory protection was inapplicable, and the proprietor was entitled to pursue his action for damages.

The appeal was allowed, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the assessed damages.