Bhattacharya v State of New South Wales & Anor [2003] NSWSC 261

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Bhattacharya v State of New South Wales & Anor [2003] NSWSC 261 HEARING DATE(S) : 25.3.03, 26.3.03, 27.3.03 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 April 2003 JURISDICTION: Common Law Division JUDGMENT OF : Mathews AJ DECISION : Action against the second defendant dismissed; verdict for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the amount of $15,000. Each party is to pay its own costs.

CATCHWORDS : Action for false imprisonment against police officers and health workers - s 24 Mental Health Act - no relevant "offence" committed - detention by police officers unlawful - no case against hospital for actions of health workers - damages against first defendant on compensatory basis - not a case for aggravated or exemplary damages. LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900 Mental Health Act CASES CITED : Reg v Howell (1982) QB 416 Spautz v Butterworth and Others (1996) 41 NSWLR 1 Pranay Kumar Bhattacharya (Plaintiff) PARTIES : State of New South Wales (First Defendant) St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Limited (Second Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20652/01 COUNSEL : Plaintiff in Person Ms C Ronalds (First and Second Defendants) Plaintiff In Person SOLICITORS : Crown Solicitor (1st Defendant) Frances Allpress (2nd Defendant)

- 21 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MATHEWS AJ

4 April 2003

20652/01 Pranay Kumar BHATTACHARYA v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOR

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: The plaintiff in this matter has had extensive litigation before this Court. Appeals to the Court of Appeal and applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court have been conducted in a number of cases. In all these cases Mr Bhattacharya has appeared for himself without the benefit of legal representation. Some of his encounters with the Court's registry and staff have been less than harmonious. As a result, Mr Bhattacharya has become well known to Court security staff and Sheriff's officers. 2 On 16 November 2000 Mr Bhattacharya allegedly threatened to kill a member of the Court of Appeal registry. This threat was not conveyed to the police at the time. However four days later, on the afternoon of 20 November 2000, Mr Bhattacharya was observed by security officers to be acting in a manner they regarded as suspicious in the precincts of the Law Courts building. Accordingly the police were called. Constables Hall and Dodds from the Rocks Police Station arrived with a caged vehicle. They were told by security officers about the incident on 16 November and about the officers' concerns in relation to Mr Bhattacharya. 3 Thereafter, a confrontation took place between Mr Bhattacharya and the two police officers. The details of this meeting I shall discuss later. It is central to the issues raised in this case. Suffice it to say here that the episode culminated in Mr Bhattacharya being taken in the caged vehicle to the Caritas unit at St Vincent's Hospital. There he was psychiatrically assessed and found not to be mentally ill within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1990. He was then allowed to leave. 4 This incident forms the basis of Mr Bhattacharya's present claim. The proceedings have a lengthy history which it is unnecessary to detail at this stage. The State of New South Wales is sued in relation to the actions of the police officers. St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Limited is sued in relation to the actions of the medical practitioners who examined Mr Bhattacharya. His claim against both is for false imprisonment. He seeks punitive damages in the amount of twenty million dollars. 5 Mr Bhattacharya's claim against the two defendants must be dealt with separately, for quite different issues apply to each of them. For reasons which will be discussed later, I consider that no action can lie against the second defendant in relation to the actions of the health officers who examined Mr Bhattacharya. However in relation to Mr Bhattacharya's case against the first defendant, there is a real issue as to whether the police officers were justified in apprehending Mr Bhattacharya and taking him to St Vincent's Hospital. This is the nub of this case and I now turn to discuss it. 6 It is apposite first to discuss the legal background of the matter. 7 Section 24 of the Mental Health Act authorises a member of the police force to apprehend a person and take them to a hospital. That section provides as follows: 24. Detention after apprehension by police