Walker v State of Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 46 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walker v State of Queensland [2022] QDC 168

PARTIES:

RICHARD SCOTT WALKER

(plaintiff)

v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1135/18

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Hearing for assessment of damages

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane District Court

HEARING DATE:

12 – 14 April 2022

JUDGES:

Byrne QC DCJ

ORDERS:

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

1.   I assess damages, including aggravated damages, in the total amount of $30,000.

2. I allow interest pursuant to section 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 from 10 September 2014 to the date of judgment.

3.   I will hear the parties as to costs.

TORTS – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – INERFERENCE WITH PERSON - ASESSMENT OF DAMAGES – CIVIL PROCEDURE – TRIAL – where a jury in the District Court found for the defendant in claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment - Where the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff’s appeal on the false imprisonment claim only and remitted the matter for an assessment of damages –where the plaintiff is seeking damages for general, aggravated and exemplary damages – where the plaintiff was unlawfully detained by police while he believed his father was about to pass away in hospital – where police would not allow the plaintiff to leave to be with his father – where police officers believed they were acting according to their training and mandated requirements - whether the plaintiff suffered emotional distress from the false imprisonment – whether the plaintiff suffered reputational damage due to false imprisonment – whether the plaintiff should be awarded damages for injury to liberty – whether exemplary damages are appropriate

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)

Adams v Kennedy [2000] 49 NSWLR 78
Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017
Bulsey & Anor v The State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027
Coleman v Greenland, Donaldson, Powers etc & The State of Queensland [2004] QSC 037
Coleman v Watson & Shaw & Anor [2007] QSC 343
Cunningham v Traynor [2016] WADC 168
Eaves v Donnelly [2011] QDC 207
Gray v Motor Accident Commission [1998] 196 CLR
Hemelaar & Red v Walsh, Gough & State of Queensland [2018] QDC 151
Lamb v Cotogno [1987] 164 CLR 1
Majindi v Northern Territory of Australia & Ors [2012] 31 NTLR 150
McDonald v Coles Myer (trading as K-mart Chatswood [1995] NSWCA 67
Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane [1987] 162 CLR 514
State of New South Wales v Delly [2007] 70 NSWLR 125
State of New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57
State of New South Wales v Smith [2017] 95 NSWLR 662
State of Western Australia v Cunningham (No. 3) [2018] WASCA 207
Walker v State of Queensland [2020] QCA 137
Whitfield v De Lauret & Co Ltd [1920] 29 CLR 71
Wotton v State of Queensland (No. 5) [2016] FCA 1457

COUNSEL:

Mr. M. de Waard for the plaintiff.
Mr. D.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Walker v State of Queensland 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
[2022] QDC 168
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Walker v State of Queensland, the plaintiff, Mr. Walker, alleged that he was unlawfully detained by police officers while he believed his father was on the brink of death in a hospital. The police did not allow him to leave to be with his father. The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal on the false imprisonment claim and remitted the matter for an assessment of damages. The plaintiff sought damages for general, aggravated, and exemplary damages. The central issues before the court were whether the plaintiff suffered emotional distress from the false imprisonment, whether the plaintiff suffered reputational damage due to false imprisonment, whether the plaintiff should be awarded damages for injury to liberty, and whether exemplary damages are appropriate.

The court examined the evidence presented and assessed the plaintiff's reliability as a witness. The court found that while the plaintiff was generally honest, there were instances where he exaggerated certain events, and there were discrepancies in his testimony. The court also considered the testimony of the police officers involved and found some aspects of their evidence to be questionable. The court concluded that the plaintiff had suffered emotional distress and reputational damage due to the false imprisonment. The court assessed damages, including aggravated damages, in the total amount of $30,000, and allowed interest pursuant to section 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 from 10 September 2014 to the date of judgment.

The court further found that damages for injury to liberty were not appropriate in this case, as the detention was relatively short, and the plaintiff's distress was primarily due to the circumstances surrounding his father's illness. The court also concluded that exemplary damages were not warranted, as the police officers believed they were acting according to their training and mandated requirements. The court will hear the parties as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I assess damages, including aggravated damages, in the total amount of $30,000.

2. I allow interest pursuant to section 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 from 10 September 2014 to the date of judgment.

3. I will hear the parties as to costs.

TORTS – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – INERFERENCE WITH PERSON - ASESSMENT OF DAMAGES – CIVIL PROCEDURE – TRIAL – where a jury in the District Court found for the defendant in claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment - Where the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff’s appeal on the false imprisonment claim only and remitted the matter for an assessment of damages –where the plaintiff is seeking damages for general, aggravated and exemplary damages – where the plaintiff was unlawfully detained by police while he believed his father was about to pass away in hospital – where police would not allow the plaintiff to leave to be with his father – where police officers believed they were acting according to their training and mandated requirements - whether the plaintiff suffered emotional distress from the false imprisonment – whether the plaintiff suffered reputational damage due to false imprisonment – whether the plaintiff should be awarded damages for injury to liberty – whether exemplary damages are appropriate

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)

Adams v Kennedy [2000] 49 NSWLR 78

Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017

Bulsey & Anor v The State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187

Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027

Coleman v Greenland, Donaldson, Powers etc & The State of Queensland [2004] QSC 037

Coleman v Watson & Shaw & Anor [2007] QSC 343

Cunningham v Traynor [2016] WADC 168

Eaves v Donnelly [2011] QDC 207

Gray v Motor Accident Commission [1998] 196 CLR

Hemelaar & Red v Walsh, Gough & State of Queensland [2018] QDC 151

Lamb v Cotogno [1987] 164 CLR 1

Majindi v Northern Territory of Australia & Ors [2012] 31 NTLR 150

McDonald v Coles Myer (trading as K-mart Chatswood [1995] NSWCA 67

Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane [1987] 162 CLR 514

State of New South Wales v Delly [2007] 70 NSWLR 125

State of New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57

State of New South Wales v Smith [2017] 95 NSWLR 662

State of Western Australia v Cunningham (No. 3) [2018] WASCA 207

Walker v State of Queensland [2020] QCA 137

Whitfield v De Lauret & Co Ltd [1920] 29 CLR 71

Wotton v State of Queensland (No. 5) [2016] FCA 1457

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The plaintiff’s father passed away on 12 September 2014.[9]The oral evidence[9]Exhibit 2, paragraph 12.Richard Scott Walker The plaintiff’s father had been hospitalised on and off for the previous eight years. The plaintiff spoke to him at the hospital on the night of 9 September 2014 by phone. As his father sounded confused and because he could not get an understanding of what was happening with him, he decided to travel from his home in Darra to the hospital on the Sunshine Coast the next day. He arranged to meet his brother at the hospital that next day, seemingly at about 10.30am. His mother had passed away, on 19 March 2012. That occurred in circumstances of her passing within a couple of hours of a palliative care team assuming responsibility for her care.[10] That was the only previous experience he had with palliative care.[11] [10]Ts 1-20, ll 1-13.[11]Ts 1-22, ll 4-8. The plaintiff arrived at the hospital at about 9.30am. He saw that his father appeared unwell; his skin was more greyish than usual and his body swollen. A nurse told the plaintiff that the palliative care team was to be there at 10am. The plaintiff took that to mean that he was initially being admitted to palliative care at that time. He felt “sheer panic, just despair” because, based on what had happened with his mother, he thought his father had hours to live.[12][12]Ts 1-20, l 30 – 1-21 l 3; 1-56 ll 1-5. He managed to compose himself and told his father he was going to the service station. He rang his brother on the way and, after filling up his vehicle with petrol and buying cigarettes, he left the service station and was then detained. When first pulled over by police, he was in “sheer panic” and “in panic mode” because he believed his father was hours from death. All he wanted to do was get back to the hospital.[13] [13]Ts 1-22, ll 1-10. When first approached by Ahrens, he was on the back foot. He was in panic mode and just wanted to get to the hospital. He said that the footage which was tendered in the course of the hearing[14] was only for five minutes, but Ahrens behaviour continued for the whole time he was with him.[15] There were interactions not recorded on the body-worn camera footage where Ahrens was “very derogatory very callous and very very rude to me”.[16][14]Exhibit 3.[15]Ts 1-22, ll 18-28.[16]Ts 1-51, l 28. He invited Ahrens to call the hospital because it was the only way he thought he would be allowed to go there, or be given an escort there, “because he was just carrying on”. He was never told that either police officer had called the hospital. As a consequence he remained of the belief that his father would die within a couple of hours. There were no other relatives with his father at the time.[17][17]Ts 1-22, l 36 – 1-23 l 23. He was shocked and in absolute disbelief that he was to be charged and his vehicle impounded. He didn’t believe he had done anything to warrant that. He offered the police officers the keys to the car several times so he could leave to get to the hospital, but the police officers would not take them.[18] [18]Ts 1-24, ll 7-24.

Decision

Reasons for decision

While I accept that Davis DCJ’s comments in Cunningham v Traynor[99], may be read as suggesting that a message for the need for training and supervision of police officers and the need for deterrence in respect of conduct contrary to proper standards creates a stand-alone basis for the award of exemplary damages, they cannot in my view be properly understood in that manner. First, the cases her Honour cites to support the statement do not support that proposition. Second, the judgment in Cunningham v Traynor was lengthy, and it seems to me that this was one small passage which could have been more clearly expressed. There is nothing in the appeal by the State in that case, or the cross-appeal by the plaintiffs,[100] to suggest the passage was understood as a stand-alone basis for the award of exemplary damages. [99]supra at [826].[100]State of Western Australia v Cunningham (No. 3) [2018] WASCA 207. Findings and conclusion I keep firmly in mind that I am assessing damages only for the tort of false imprisonment, and not for that of malicious prosecution. The period of 63 minutes the subject of these proceedings is intertwined with an allegation of “hooning” (and the consequential impoundment and towing of the plaintiff’s vehicle) and a counter allegation of malicious prosecution; both of which are unproven. The intertwining of the allegations is evidenced by the content and structure of the pleadings. Another example, but not the only one, is the plaintiff’s evidence about why he was bullied at work after these events, which is reproduced at paragraph [43] herein. That does not mean that particular conduct is deprived of relevance or weight unless it can be attributed solely to the false imprisonment but, when it is in part attributable to the malicious prosecution, it may attract less weight. I found the plaintiff to be a generally honest witness whose reliability suffered in some respects from the passage of time, the fact he has had to recount events several times prior to this hearing and the distress he experienced in recalling events. Further, or perhaps as part of these features, he had a tendency to exaggerate on occasion. For reasons which will later be explained, one example was when he described the extent of the adjacent traffic collision and the use of the “jaws of life”. Another was when he asserted his father passed away only within hours of his detention. Further, the hospital notes expressly record that Dr Larsen spoke with the plaintiff on the evening of 11 September 2014,[101] yet he testified to the effect that he had heard nothing. This discrepancy was not put to the plaintiff for explanation, and so I should be careful in using it, but it does tend to suggest another occasion of exaggeration.[101]See paragraph 61(3) herein. I considered Ahrens’ testimony to be a little mechanical, probably as a result of the passage of time. He seemed to me to want to rigidly adhere to anything that was in other material and was reticent to accept something that was not in that material, even if it was obvious. It is hard to accept that he recalled everything he claimed to as being a conclusive recollection, rather than from having refreshed his memory. Further, for reasons to be explained below, there are aspects of his evidence which cannot be accepted.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.