Wrongful/Unlawful Arrests by Garry Sims https://padlet.com/g_sims/wrongful Made with an open mind en-us 2017-12-07 21:54:22 UTC 2017-12-08 01:48:02 UTC hello@padlet.com LAWFUL ARREST: REQUIREMENTS https://padlet.com/g_sims/wrongful/wish/214368309 Firstly, it is imperative that officers announce through verbal and physical actions or statements to why an individual is being arrested and to make clear that they are no longer able to do as they please “under arrest”. If the individual being arrested refuses to comply, it is considered as an offence by attempting to escape from custody and/or refuse arrest.
The individual MUST be informed to why they are being held under arrest, whether it is an arrest for suspicion or for actions. The Crimes Act 1900 (Cth) states:
  1. An officer who arrests another person for an offence has to always be informed by the officer at the time of the offence to why they are being arrested.

Other requirements for 'lawful' arrest as per the Code of Practice for Crime, the requirements for a lawful arrest state that,

  1. "Arresting without a warrant must be carried out under reasonable suspicion"
  2. "When exercising a power to arrest, you may use such force as is reasonably necessary
    to make the arrest or to prevent the escape of the person after arrest."
  3. "When you arrest a person for the purpose of taking the person into lawful custody,
    you may search the person at or after the time of arrest if you suspect on reasonable grounds that it is prudent to do so in order to ascertain"
  4. "You must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take the arrested person before an
    authorised officer to be dealt with according to law."



]]> 2017-12-08 01:28:07 UTC https://padlet.com/g_sims/wrongful/wish/214368309 CASE STUDY https://padlet.com/g_sims/wrongful/wish/214369489 It was shown in this case study that the police officer viscously assaulted two citizens which involved spraying of OC to the face, kicked. They then falsely arrested and detained both citizens for resisting arrest and assaulting the police officer.

It was later found in court that there was CCTV footage showing that both citizens were victims of brutal assault and that the Police Officer had unlawfully detained and arrested both victims.

Outcome:
Proceedings were commenced in the District Court of New South Wales. Prior to the matter going to hearing, the State of New South Wales agreed to settle their cases for a sum of damages.
http://obriensolicitors.com.au/case-studies/unlawful-imprisonment-and-false-arrest-cases/unlawful-imprisonment-eh-and-ph-v-nsw-state/]]> 2017-12-08 01:41:09 UTC https://padlet.com/g_sims/wrongful/wish/214369489 case study https://padlet.com/g_sims/wrongful/wish/214369809
A review of NSW case law suggests that all three cases of false imprisonment contained in published case reports in 2016 have resulted in judgments against police.


One of those cases involved Thomas Hamilton, a 68-year old man who successfully sued police for unlawful arrest, battery and malicious prosecution after a night out turned into violence.


Mr Hamilton enjoyed a Sydney Harbour cruise before catching a taxi into the city. Upon arriving, the taxi driver signalled to police that Hamilton had been causing trouble.


Hamilton was approached by Senior Constables Mildenhall and Liebrand, who grabbed him by the left arm, swung him into a concrete wall and later performed a ‘leg sweep’ which knocked him to the ground and fracturing his ribs. Hamilton also sustained severe facial bruising as a result of the assault.


The incident was captured on CCTV footage.


Both a local internal police investigation and the Police Integrity Commission cleared police of all wrongdoing.


Armed with the footage, Mr Hamilton took his case to the Supreme Court of NSW, which delivered its judgment last week.


During the hearing, Justice Campbell was highly critical of the police conduct and the reliability of sworn testimony given by the officers, finding that:


“Senior Constable Mildenhall has deliberately reconstructed a version of events from repeated viewing of the CCTV footage for the purpose of exculpating himself from any wrongdoing”.


The judge was especially critical of the aggressive manner in which police handcuffed Hamilton as he lay motionless and seriously injured on the ground, posing no danger at all.


The NSW Police Force was ordered to pay Mr Hamilton $582,000 in damages plus his legal costs – money that will ultimately come out of the pockets of NSW taxpayers.


]]> 2017-12-08 01:45:36 UTC https://padlet.com/g_sims/wrongful/wish/214369809