Beckett v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 626

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Beckett v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 626 Hearing dates: 17 June 2011 Decision date: 27 June 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison J Decision: The defendant to give discovery limited to the 38 categories identified in numbered paragraphs in exhibit A Catchwords: PROCEDURE - discovery and inspection of documents - whether to grant order for discovery in 56 nominated categories - order made for discovery in 38 of the nominated categories Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Police Act 1990 Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act 1978 Cases Cited: A v New South Wales [2007] HCA 10; (2007) 230 CLR 500 Hamod v State of New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 425 Priest v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 12 R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Roseanne Beckett (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant) Representation: - Counsel: P E Blackett SC (Plaintiff) A N Williams (Defendant) - Solicitors: Turner Freeman (Plaintiff) I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (Defendant) File Number(s): 2008/289411

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR : By notice of motion filed on 18 May 2011 the plaintiff seeks an order for discovery in nominated categories. The plaintiff's motion is supported by an affidavit of Terence Louis Goldberg sworn on 11 May 2011. The defendant also filed a notice of motion seeking certain relief from the production of documents if discovery is ordered. The defendant relies upon the affidavits of Lynley Tretheway affirmed on 24 May 2011 and David Brumby affirmed on 25 May 2011. 2The motions came before Harrison AsJ on 1 June 2011 but her Honour was unable to dispose of them on that occasion. The parties are agreed that her Honour did not become part heard. In the events that have occurred, the matter then came before me in my capacity as the judge case managing the proceedings. I agreed to deal with the motions having regard to the fast approaching hearing date commencing on 1 August 2011. The parties also agreed that I should do so upon the basis of their written submissions filed with the Court. 3In general terms, the proceedings involve a claim for damages for malicious prosecution against the police. They were originally commenced by statement of claim filed in August 2008. Notwithstanding their relative antiquity, the pleadings were not finalised until the filing of a defence to the plaintiff's amended statement of claim on 21 January 2011. The matter is estimated to require between six and eight weeks of hearing time to complete. I allocated the hearing date as recently as 25 February 2011. The defendant opposed the matter being set down for hearing at that time for reasons that included that the matter was not ready.