State of New South Wales & Anor v Coleman [2000] NSWCA 183

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : State of New South Wales & Anor v Coleman [2000] NSWCA 183 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40645/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 2 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 July 2000

PARTIES : State of New South Wales & Keith Baird v Douglas Steven Coleman JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Meagher JA at 3; Fitzgerald JA at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT 6911/96 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Quickenden ADCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Appellant: P.Saidi Respondent: B. Rigg SOLICITORS : Appellant: I.V. Knight, Crown Solicitor Respondent: Harpers CATCHWORDS : Wrongful arrest - false imprisonment - alleged breach of apprehended violence order (AVO) - police officer's belief at time of arrest - resulting injury - damages LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act (NSW) 1900, s.352, s.562, Justices Act, s.122. CASES CITED: Fleet v District Court of NSW (1999) NSWCA 363. DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES and Keith BAIRD V Douglas Steven COLEMAN

WRONGFUL ARREST-FALSE IMPRISONMENT-ALLEGED BREACH OF APPREHENDED VIOLENCE ORDER-POLICE OFFICER'S BELIEF AT TIME OF ARREST-CRIMES ACT 1900 (NSW)-RESULTING INJURY-DAMAGES

Facts: Mr Coleman's former de facto wife, Miss Sinclair, obtained an Apprehended Violence Order against him. So as to stay the orders pending appeal, Mr Coleman entered into a recognizance, the conditions of which were the same as the original Court order. On one occasion prior to the appeal, Mr Coleman and Miss Sinclair found themselves at the same hotel. Mr Coleman spoke to the bar manager about their situation. The manager spoke to Miss Sinclair, who then left the premises. Mr Coleman was subsequently arrested for breach of the Apprehended Violence Order. He brought action for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, arguing the original order was not in force as it had been stayed by the appeal. The trial judge awarded him a total of $53, 545 in damages. The appellants appealed against this decision. They submitted the trial judge failed to address a number of grounds which led the arresting police officer to believe the order was still in force at the time of arrest.