LANGFORD v TURNBULL [1990] NSWCA 112

LANGFORD v TURNBULL [1990] NSWCA 112

The trial judge erred by withdrawing all questions of fact relevant to liability from the jury and determining them himself under s79A District Court Act 1973, thereby causing a mistrial. There were disputed issues of fact that should have been determined by the jury, notably the officers' state of mind and the circumstances of arrest, including whether the plaintiff attempted flight. An action for false arrest and wrongful imprisonment in these circumstances requires jury determination on disputed facts before the judge decides whether there was reasonable and probable cause justifying the arrest. Consequently, the judgment in favour of the plaintiff must be set aside and a general...

Parties
Plaintiff: Linda Turnbull; Defendant: A M Langford; Defendant: C O'Hare
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed, judgment for respondent set aside; general retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
False Arrest, Wrongful Imprisonment, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Police Powers, Role of Judge and Jury
Tort Law Criminal Law Procedure False Arrest Wrongful Imprisonment Reasonable and Probable Cause Police Powers Role of Judge and Jury

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Turnbull

Plaintiff

A M Langford

Defendant

C O'Hare

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge had power under s79A District Court Act 1973 to determine disputed questions of fact reserved for the jury
  2. 2 Whether the arrest by police constables was lawful under s352 Crimes Act 1900
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's arrest was based on reasonable and probable cause

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by withdrawing all questions of fact relevant to liability from the jury and determining them himself under s79A District Court Act 1973, thereby causing a mistrial. There were disputed issues of fact that should have been determined by the jury, notably the officers' state of mind and the circumstances of arrest, including whether the plaintiff attempted flight. An action for false arrest and wrongful imprisonment in these circumstances requires jury determination on disputed facts before the judge decides whether there was reasonable and probable cause justifying the arrest. Consequently, the judgment in favour of the plaintiff must be set aside and a general...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, judgment for respondent set aside; general retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Set aside the judgment entered in favour of the respondent.
  • Order that the matter be returned to the District Court for retrial.