Walker v State of Queensland - [2020] QCA 137

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walker v State of Queensland [2020] QCA 137

PARTIES:

RICHARD SCOTT WALKER
(applicant)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10449 of 2019
DC No 1153 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 29 August 2019 (Koppenol DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison and Philippides JJA

ORDERS:

Grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside orders 1 and 2 of the orders made on 29 August 2019 and, instead, order that:

(a)   There be judgment for the plaintiff on his claim for damages for false imprisonment;

(b) There be judgment for the defendant on all other claims;

(c)   The proceeding be remitted to the District Court for an assessment of damages by a judge other than the trial judge;

(d) The costs of the trial before Koppenol DCJ be reserved; and

(e)   The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – where the applicant drove out of a service station and then made a U-turn – where he was then intercepted by two police officers in a police car – where the officers told him that he had been stopped because he had performed a burn-out – where the applicant denied that he had done this but accepted that he had lost traction for a moment – where the applicant told one of the officers that his father was in the nearby hospital in a critical state and that he was anxious to get back there – where the applicant was detained so that one of the officers could serve documents upon him – where the applicant commenced proceedings in the District Court against the State of Queensland – where a jury found for the defendant on the claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution – where the applicant now appeals only against the dismissal of his claim for damages for false imprisonment – whether the applicant is entitled to judgment on his claim

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – MODE OF TRIAL – JURY – where the jury was asked to consider whether the defendant had established a defence that the law did not provide – where the actual issue raised on the pleadings was never considered by the jury, namely whether the applicant had been restrained “to impound a motor vehicle” and, if so, whether he had been restrained only “for the time reasonably necessary” – whether the verdict of the jury was one that no reasonable jury could reach

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COURT SUPERVISION – DIRECTIONS – where the applicant submitted at trial that the jury should be directed that the power conferred by s 75(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) did not…

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.

Continue reading Walker v State of Queensland

Details

AGLC: Walker v State of Queensland [2020] QCA 137
Case: [2020] QCA 137
Decision Date: 23 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Walker, commenced proceedings against the State of Queensland for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The appellant alleged that he was falsely imprisoned by two police officers who intercepted him after he had left a service station. The appellant denied performing a burn-out, but admitted to losing traction. He told the officers that his father was in hospital and that he needed to return there. The officers detained the appellant to serve him with documents. The jury found for the respondent on both claims. The appellant appealed against the dismissal of his claim for damages for false imprisonment. The court had to determine whether the jury’s verdict was one that no reasonable jury could reach and whether the directions and questions posed to the jury were legally incorrect. The court held that the jury should have been directed to consider whether the detention was to impound a motor vehicle and, if so, whether it was for the time reasonably necessary. The court found that the jury was not properly directed and that this resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the District Court for an assessment of damages. The trial judge’s costs were reserved, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside orders 1 and 2 of the orders made on 29 August 2019 and, instead, order that:

(a) There be judgment for the plaintiff on his claim for damages for false imprisonment;

(b) There be judgment for the defendant on all other claims;

(d) The costs of the trial before Koppenol DCJ be reserved; and

(e) The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal.

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.

CITATION:	Walker v State of Queensland [2020] QCA 137
PARTIES:	RICHARD SCOTT WALKER (applicant) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10449 of 2019 DC No 1153 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 29 August 2019 (Koppenol DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	23 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 March 2020
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison and Philippides JJA
ORDERS:	Grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside orders 1 and 2 of the orders made on 29 August 2019 and, instead, order that: (a) There be judgment for the plaintiff on his claim for damages for false imprisonment; (b) There be judgment for the defendant on all other claims; (c) The proceeding be remitted to the District Court for an assessment of damages by a judge other than the trial judge; (d) The costs of the trial before Koppenol DCJ be reserved; and (e) The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – where the applicant drove out of a service station and then made a U-turn – where he was then intercepted by two police officers in a police car – where the officers told him that he had been stopped because he had performed a burn-out – where the applicant denied that he had done this but accepted that he had lost traction for a moment – where the applicant told one of the officers that his father was in the nearby hospital in a critical state and that he was anxious to get back there – where the applicant was detained so that one of the officers could serve documents upon him – where the applicant commenced proceedings in the District Court against the State of Queensland – where a jury found for the defendant on the claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution – where the applicant now appeals only against the dismissal of his claim for damages for false imprisonment – whether the applicant is entitled to judgment on his claim PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – MODE OF TRIAL – JURY – where the jury was asked to consider whether the defendant had established a defence that the law did not provide – where the actual issue raised on the pleadings was never considered by the jury, namely whether the applicant had been restrained “to impound a motor vehicle” and, if so, whether he had been restrained only “for the time reasonably necessary” – whether the verdict of the jury was one that no reasonable jury could reach PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COURT SUPERVISION – DIRECTIONS – where the applicant submitted at trial that the jury should be directed that the power conferred by s 75(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) did not…