Coffen v Goodhart [2013] NSWSC 1018

Coffen v Goodhart [2013] NSWSC 1018

The measurement of a person's height is not an external examination of a part of the body within the meaning of s 3(1)(a) of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000. Therefore, the Local Court erred in law and the order authorising the procedure must be set aside.

Parties
Plaintiff: Marco Francis Coffen; Defendant: Detective Bradley Goodhart
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Definition of Non Intimate Forensic Procedure, Statutory Interpretation, Costs in Appeals
Criminal Law Forensic Procedures Appellate Procedure Definition of Non Intimate Forensic Procedure Statutory Interpretation Costs in Appeals

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco Francis Coffen

Plaintiff

Detective Bradley Goodhart

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Local Court / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether measurement of height qualifies as a "non-intimate forensic procedure" under s 3(1) of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate erred in law in characterising the taking of height measurement as an external examination of a part of the body

Ratio Decidendi

The measurement of a person's height is not an external examination of a part of the body within the meaning of s 3(1)(a) of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000. Therefore, the Local Court erred in law and the order authorising the procedure must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The final order made on 1 December 2011 in the Central Local Court under s 24 of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 be set aside.