Geoffrey Arthur Woodley (Appellant) Brian Brederick Boyd (First Respondent) Christopher David Caldwel (Second Respondent) State of New South Wales (Third Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:
Heydon JA at 1; Davies AJA at 92; Foster AJA at 98
Tort - Whether unlawful arrest - Whether assault - Damages sought - Whether collateral purpose of arrest - Police conduct - Use of force by police during arrest - Whether excessive force used - Resistance of arrestee - Effect of trial judge's rejection of plaintiff as witness of truth on claim for unlawful arrest and assault. D
Appeal dismissed; the appellant is to pay the costs of the defendants.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40728/99 DC 5625/97
HEYDON JA DAVIES AJA FOSTER AJA
WOODLEY v BOYD
Tort - Whether Unlawful arrest - Whether Assault - Damages sought - Whether collateral purpose of arrest - Police conduct - Use of force by police during arrest - Whether excessive force used - Resistance of arrestee - Effect of trial judge’s rejection of plaintiff as witness of truth on claim for unlawful arrest and assault.
The appellant had an encounter with two policemen (the first and second respondents) on the night of 18 December 1991. The appellant was driving his car and was stopped by the policemen. An altercation ensued resulting in the breaking of the appellant’s arm. The appellant alleged that the policemen assaulted and unlawfully arrested him, and he sued them (and the third respondent, the State of New South Wales) in the District Court for unlawful arrest, assault and malicious prosecution. The claim of malicious prosecution related to charges brought against the appellant in relation to his behaviour on the night in question. At trial, the plaintiff and the respondents proffered different versions of the events that occurred on 18 December 1991, but the trial…
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 Woodley v Boyd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Woodley v Boyd [2001] NSWCA 35
Case
[2001] NSWCA 35
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Woodley (the appellant) brought proceedings against Boyd and others (the respondents), who were police officers, seeking damages for alleged unlawful arrest and assault. The dispute centred on the circumstances surrounding the appellant's arrest and the use of force by the police during that arrest. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the arrest of the appellant was unlawful, whether the appellant had been assaulted by the police officers, and whether the force used by the police during the arrest was excessive. The court also considered the effect of the trial judge's finding that the appellant was not a witness of truth on his claims for unlawful arrest and assault.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings of fact, including the rejection of the appellant as a witness of truth. This rejection was critical to the court's determination that the appellant had not established his claims for unlawful arrest and assault. The court found that the police officers had acted lawfully in arresting the appellant and that the force used was not excessive, particularly in light of the appellant's resistance. The legal principles applied concerned the powers of police to arrest and use force, and the evidentiary weight to be given to a witness found not to be truthful.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed; the appellant is to pay the costs of the defendants.