False Imprisonment Claim: When an Aboriginal mother called her local police station asking for urgent help, officers arrested her instead. Her husband and adult daughter followed her to the station to find out what was happening. They were also arrested.
Our civil lawyers at O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors acted for all three family members in a civil claim against the State of New South Wales. The claim was for false imprisonment, assault and battery, trespass to goods, and malicious prosecution. After the criminal proceedings reached the NSW Court of Appeal on an important point of law, the civil matter settled favourably for our clients following mediation and further negotiations.
Read our other Civil Law Case Studies.
Background to the False Imprisonment Claim
Our client Janell* is a Aboriginal woman living in regional New South Wales. Earlier that year, she had been charged with a minor criminal offence. She was on conditional bail while awaiting her hearing.
Her bail conditions prevented her from contacting her local police station except in an emergency. She could call 000 or use other reporting channels.
Some months later, her adult son was verbally abused. Janelle was worried. She rang the local station to ask for police to attend. She explained the situation in short, urgent terms. The officer on the phone later said Janelle was rude.
What happened next forms the foundation of the false imprisonment claim.
The Wrongful Arrest on Janelle’s Front Porch: False Imprisonment Claim
Rather than attending the home to assist, two police officers went there to arrest Janelle for breach of bail. Without asking her why she had called police, the officers arrested her. They placed her in a caged police vehicle and drove her to the station.
The arresting officer later admitted in cross-examination that:
- He did not ask Janelle whether she had a reasonable excuse for calling police.
- He did not consider whether the alleged breach was trivial or serious.
- He did not consider any alternative to arrest, such as a warning or a court attendance notice.
This directly engages section 77(3) of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). That section requires a police officer to turn their mind to specific matters before deciding how to respond to a suspected breach of bail. It protects against unnecessary arrest.
Janelle’s Husband and Daughter Also Arrested
Janelle’s husband Marcus* and adult daughter Tahlia* followed the police vehicle to the station. Soon after they walked through the station doors, both were arrested. Both were charged with hindering and resisting police.
Marcus and Tahlia were granted police bail the same evening. Janelle was refused bail and kept in custody overnight. She was brought before the Local Court the following morning and released on conditional bail.
Criminal Proceedings and a Landmark Appeal
At the Local Court hearing, some charges against Marcus and Tahlia were dismissed. Others were found proven. Janelle was convicted of resisting an officer in the execution of duty.
Janelle appealed to the NSW Supreme Court on a question of law. The appeal was dismissed. She then sought leave to appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal. You can read similar decisions on the NSW Caselaw website.
Before the Court of Appeal hearing, the Director of Public Prosecutions conceded that the proposed appeal raised an issue of principle of general public importance. The Court of Appeal granted leave, allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.
The Court confirmed a critical principle: a police officer must properly consider the matters in section 77(3) of the Bail Act before arresting a person for a suspected breach of bail. Where those matters are not considered, the arrest is unlawful.
Following that ruling, Marcus and Tahlia’s all-grounds appeals proceeded to the District Court. The DPP offered no evidence. Both convictions were quashed.
False Imprisonment Claim
With the criminal matters resolved in their favour, the family brought a civil claim against the State of New South Wales. The claim included:
- False imprisonment: each family member had been unlawfully detained.
- Assault and battery: unlawful handling and physical contact during arrest, searches and fingerprinting.
- Trespass to goods: unlawful seizure of personal belongings during the custody process.
- Malicious prosecution: the criminal proceedings were maintained without reasonable and probable cause.
The State of New South Wales admitted false imprisonment, assault and battery, and trespass to goods. It denied malicious prosecution. After negotiations, we secured a favourable settlement for all three family members.
Why This False Imprisonment Claim Matters
This case highlights several important points for anyone thinking about a false imprisonment claim against NSW Police.
- Police must follow the Bail Act when responding to a suspected breach. They cannot simply arrest. They must consider less intrusive options first, such as taking no action, issuing a warning, or issuing a court attendance notice.
- An unlawful arrest has knock-on effects. If the initial arrest is unlawful, any search, fingerprinting or seizure that follows may also be unlawful. Each can support a separate head of damage.
- The protections in the Bail Act exist for everyone. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians remain overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission oversees serious police misconduct in New South Wales. Cases like this one reinforce the legal safeguards that apply to every arrest.
Speak To Our Experienced False Imprisonment Lawyers
O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors has extensive experience acting for clients in civil claims against police. We run false imprisonment claims, malicious prosecution claims, assault and battery claims, and trespass claims across New South Wales.
If you believe you have been wrongfully arrested or falsely imprisoned, please contact our team for a confidential discussion.
*We always change the names and other identifiable details in case studies to protect client privacy.
