New South Wales v Madden [2024] NSWCA 40
In the matter of State of New South Wales v Madden [2024] NSWCA 40, the respondent, Ebonie Madden, brought proceedings against the State of New South Wales, alleging tortious claims of false imprisonment, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
The background of the case stems from an incident on 30 December 2019, shortly after Madden was released from prison on parole. She was apprehended by police and subsequently charged with possessing a knife in public, goods in custody, and resisting police. Although the knife was found in a bag being held by Dylan Turner, an associate accompanying Madden at the time, she was still charged and denied bail, spending approximately six months in custody. The charges were later dismissed at a hearing.
On 16 December 2022, in Madden v The State of New South Wales [2022] NSWDC 647, the District Court found that the State was vicariously liable for the actions of certain police officers. These actions were deemed to constitute battery, unlawful detention, and malicious prosecution. As a result, Madden was awarded $320,000 in damages, inclusive of general, aggravated, and exemplary components, along with interest and legal costs.
The State of New South Wales appealed the decision on multiple grounds, including:
- Alleged judicial bias on the part of the trial judge.
- Whether the arrest and detention of Madden under section 99 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) were lawful.
- The applicability of sections 3B and 43A of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
- Whether the prosecution was initiated and pursued without reasonable cause and with malicious intent.
- Whether the harm suffered was a direct consequence of the conduct by the police.
- Whether the exemplary damages awarded were excessive.
Findings of the Court of Appeal
- Ground 1 – Judicial Bias: The appeal court found no merit in the State’s claim that the trial judge displayed apprehended bias. The judge had openly invited the State to raise any concerns regarding bias or to apply for disqualification, which they declined to do [at 110].
- Ground 2 – Lawfulness of Arrest: The court upheld the trial judge’s rejection of Senior Constable Darnton’s assertion that Madden possessed the bag containing the knife. Applying the reasoning in Fox v Percy, the appellate court found no grounds to overturn the finding that the arrest was unlawful [at 128].
- Ground 3 – Application of Civil Liability Act: The court rejected the State’s argument that SC Darnton’s intent to enforce the law precluded a finding of injury under s 3B(1)(a). The deprivation of liberty, in this context, was deemed an injury—even in the absence of physical harm—because it infringed upon Madden’s common law right to freedom of movement [at 128, 146].
- Ground 4 – Malicious Prosecution: The court determined that even based on SC Darnton’s testimony, there was no reasonable or probable cause for maintaining the prosecution after reviewing the body-worn camera footage. Malicious prosecution encompasses both initiating and persisting with baseless charges [at 180].
- Ground 5 – Causation of Harm: The court found that the harm Madden suffered was indeed caused by the wrongful police conduct. Once accurate information was revealed before Magistrate Milledge, the discrepancies in the police fact sheet became evident, resulting in Madden’s bail being granted, her parole reinstated, and her release from remand after more than five months of unjustified incarceration [at 186].
- Ground 6 – Excessive Damages: This ground was also dismissed, with no error found in the trial judge’s approach to awarding exemplary damages.
Conclusion
On 29 February 2024, the New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed the State’s appeal affirming the trial judgment in favour of Madden.