Webster & Anor v Lampard

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr Anthony Reginald Webster, was represented by Mr S.C. Churches, and the respondent, Mr Lampard, was represented by Mr G.J. O'Hara. The core of the dispute revolved around whether public officials, specifically police officers, could claim statutory immunity for actions that were fundamentally illegal and outside the scope of their authorised functions, such as trespass.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether statutory immunity provisions, specifically section 138 of the Police Act and section 47A of the Limitation Act, could protect public officials who engaged in illegal conduct, such as trespass, if they believed such conduct was within their statutory functions. The applicant argued that the Full Court's interpretation, which emphasised the necessity of good faith and bona fides for such immunity, effectively placed these provisions on the same footing as those explicitly requiring such elements, despite their general wording.

The applicant contended that the respondent, a police sergeant, had committed trespass by remaining on the applicant's leased premises after any licence to be there had been revoked. The applicant had explicitly informed the respondent that he was trespassing, and the respondent had refused to leave and had threatened arrest. The applicant's submission was that such an act of trespass, occurring after the revocation of any licence and not being part of any authorised statutory act, could not be protected by the immunity provisions, as it fell outside the scope of functions that the statute empowered the police to perform.