Citation: Pratten v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWDC 299
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 October 2018
Judge: Hatzistergos DCJ
Background
In July 2014, a 17-year-old learner driver (the plaintiff) was on a driving lesson with her father when a dispute escalated into a physical altercation. The plaintiff struck her father on the upper chest and stomach during the argument, then drove the vehicle unaccompanied after he exited the car. Police arrived shortly afterwards and arrested her.
Following her arrest, the plaintiff was transported to Waverley Police Station and charged with multiple offences. She was a minor at the time and, by her own admission, had a prior history of conflict with her father, had previously used illicit substances, and had been arrested before.
The plaintiff brought civil proceedings against the State of New South Wales alleging that the arrest was unlawful, that she was wrongly imprisoned, that she was subjected to battery and assault while in custody, and that she was the subject of a malicious prosecution.
Legal Issues
- Whether the arresting officers had lawful grounds to arrest the plaintiff under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), s 99
- Whether the plaintiff's detention at the police station constituted false imprisonment
- Whether the conduct of police officers toward the plaintiff while in custody amounted to battery or assault
- Whether the prosecution of the plaintiff was brought maliciously, applying the test in A v State of New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500
Decision
False Imprisonment: The court found that police had lawful grounds to arrest the plaintiff under s 99 of LEPRA. Given the circumstances at the time of arrest, including the visible altercation with her father, the plaintiff's emotional state, and her act of driving unaccompanied on a learner's permit, the court was satisfied that the arresting officers held a reasonable suspicion justifying the arrest. The claim for false imprisonment therefore failed.
Battery and Assault: The court considered the plaintiff's account of the conduct of police officers, including Senior Constable Marshall's removal of the plaintiff from the vehicle and events at the police station. The court assessed the credibility of the witnesses, including the plaintiff, her father, and the police officers. Having regard to the evidence as a whole, the court did not accept that the conduct of officers during the arrest or detention amounted to actionable battery or assault.
Malicious Prosecution: The malicious prosecution claim required the plaintiff to establish, among other elements, that the prosecutor acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice. Applying the High Court's framework from A v State of New South Wales, the court found the plaintiff could not satisfy these requirements. The court concluded that the prosecution was not brought maliciously and that there was a reasonable basis for it to have been commenced.
The court noted at the outset that the conduct of proceedings had been complicated by the defendant's failure to provide adequate particulars and a properly defined statement of issues, which caused frequent interruptions. Despite these procedural difficulties, the court resolved all issues against the plaintiff on the merits.
Orders Made
- Verdict and judgment for the defendant (State of New South Wales)
- The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs, subject to any application within 14 days to relist the matter for a further or other costs order
- Exhibits to be retained for 28 days
Key Takeaways
- To establish a wrongful arrest claim, a plaintiff must show that the arresting officer lacked a reasonable suspicion required by s 99 of LEPRA; visible evidence of an assault and agitated conduct by the person arrested will ordinarily support a finding of reasonable suspicion.
- A successful malicious prosecution claim requires proof of absence of reasonable and probable cause as well as actual malice on the part of the prosecutor, both of which the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing: A v State of New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500 applies.
- No liability for battery or assault in custody was established where the court preferred the evidence of police officers over that of the plaintiff on the circumstances of the arrest and detention.
- The District Court reiterated the obligation on parties, consistent with Baffico v YMCA of Great Lakes Inc and s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, to supply properly particularised statements of issues to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of disputes, noting the defendant's failure to do so caused significant disruption to the trial.
- Supplementary written submissions filed beyond the scope of leave granted were considered by the court, but did not alter the outcome on any issue.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), ss 99, 105, 230, 231
- Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 51, 52, 53
- Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 58
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 89A
- Children's (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 8
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 177
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
- Graffiti Control Act 2008 (NSW)
- Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 116
- Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 136
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Key Cases:
- A v State of New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500 (High Court's framework for malicious prosecution)
- Baffico v YMCA of Great Lakes Inc [2014] NSWCA 61 (case management obligations)
- State of New South Wales v Landini [2010] NSWCA 157
- State of New South Wales v Robinson [2016] NSWCA 334
- State of New South Wales v Randall [2017] NSWCA 88
- HD v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 85
- Lule v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 125
- Zaravinos v State of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 320
- Sahade v Bischoff [2015] NSWCA 418
- Papakosmas v R (1999) 196 CLR 297
- PM v R [2007] HCA 49