Hadid v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWDC 446

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hadid v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWDC 446 Hearing dates: 18,19 and 20 September and 5 October 2023 Date of orders: 24 October 2023 Decision date: 24 October 2023 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Weber SC DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment and verdict for the defendant against the plaintiff. (2) The plaintiff pay the defendants costs Catchwords: TORTS – Unlawful Imprisonment - Battery – Police use of force in an arrest Legislation Cited: Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Randall (2017) NSWCA 88 Owlstara v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 217 Woodley v Boyd [2001] NSWCA 35 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Jawad Hadid Defendant: State of New South Wales Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr J Sheller SC Defendant: Mr A Williams

Solicitors: Plaintiff: Defendant: File Number(s): 2022/74026 Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. The plaintiff in these proceedings is a young man. At the time of the events in question he was 27 years of age. Notwithstanding his relative youth, he had by that time accumulated a lengthy and lamentable criminal history. 2. His criminal antecedents commenced in the Children's Court and involves assaults, resisting Police, possession of loaded firearms in public places, possession of firearms with altered barrels and supplying indictable quantities of prohibited drugs. 3. By September 2018, the Police had resolved to arrest the plaintiff for various offences, primarily drug related offences. Police were of the view that he was "coordinating a complex drug supply syndicate", involving methyl amphetamine, cocaine and cannabis (DX1 p.3). 4. The Police Operational Orders designed to affect the safe execution of a search warrant of the premises where he was thought to be living, and to affect his safe arrest, details the considerable planning that went into these tasks (DX1). 5. Police suspected that he was in possession of a firearm (DX1 p.3). Indeed, the Operational Order carried an allegation that the plaintiff had a compartment in the glove box of his vehicle, which was intended to accommodate a pistol (DX1 p.4). 6. The plaintiff at this time was the subject of a Firearm Prohibition Order. Police were also aware of the plaintiff's propensity to flee from Police to avoid arrest, which propensity had included him driving furiously to avoid arrest. 7. A formal risk assessment was prepared for both the arrest of the plaintiff and the search of his premises in Merrylands West (DX2). This risk assessment made frequent reference to the fact that the Police believed that the plaintiff would likely be armed. It also dealt with the plaintiff's propensity to avoid arrest (p.6). Approaching officers were directed not to affect an arrest while the plaintiff was in his car (p.8). The risk assessment also noted the plaintiff's propensity for violence (p.8). 8. Such was the concern surrounding the risks of the plaintiff's proposed arrest, that the plaintiff's physical apprehension would be undertaken by officers of the Bass Hill Enforcement Squad who were tactically trained (TP 142.15 – 23). All Police involved in the arrest operation were directed to wear ballistic vests. 9. Prior to the operation, all of the officers involved attended a briefing at which the plans for the arrest, and its attendant risks were discussed.