Henskens v Rudd [2020] NSWSC 533

Henskens v Rudd [2020] NSWSC 533

The magistrate applied the correct legal principles and the assurance given by police did not extend to the image charges as the officer giving the assurance was unaware of those allegations. There was no error in the conduct of the proceedings or in the weighing of the evidence. Principles of promissory estoppel do not apply to prevent prosecution on these facts. Nor does double jeopardy arise, as the previous proceedings were civil and did not encompass the image charges. No question of law justifying leave to appeal was established; therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Parties
Plaintiff: Peter G Henskens; Sixth Defendant: Detective Jarrad Rudd; Seventh Defendant: Senior Constable Leah Hughes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (refusal of Permanent Stay of Proceedings) / Leave to Appeal Sought and Determined
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs orders made against plaintiff; summons dismissed; seventh defendant removed as party
Legal Topics
Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Promissory Estoppel, Double Jeopardy, Appeals From Local Court, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Permanent Stay of Proceedings Abuse of Process Promissory Estoppel Double Jeopardy Appeals From Local Court Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter G Henskens

Plaintiff

Detective Jarrad Rudd

Sixth Defendant

Senior Constable Leah Hughes

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (refusal of Permanent Stay of Proceedings) / Leave to Appeal Sought and Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from refusal of permanent stay of criminal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a representation by police gave rise to promissory estoppel preventing image charges
  3. 3 Whether double jeopardy principles applied

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate applied the correct legal principles and the assurance given by police did not extend to the image charges as the officer giving the assurance was unaware of those allegations. There was no error in the conduct of the proceedings or in the weighing of the evidence. Principles of promissory estoppel do not apply to prevent prosecution on these facts. Nor does double jeopardy arise, as the previous proceedings were civil and did not encompass the image charges. No question of law justifying leave to appeal was established; therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs orders made against plaintiff; summons dismissed; seventh defendant removed as party

Orders

  • Refuse leave to appeal.
  • Order the plaintiff to pay the sixth and seventh defendants' costs of the proceedings.