Russell v Corrections Officer Reid & Ors

[2016] VSCA 207

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Battery
3. › Defences
4. › Self-defence
5. › Civil proceedings
6. › Whether defendant believed on reasonable grounds that force was necessary
7. › Proportionality of response as factor in determining necessity
1. Torts
2. › Battery
3. › Defences
4. › Lawful authority
5. › Prison officers
6. › Statutory defence under s 23 of Corrections Act 1986 (Vic)
7. › Whether elements of defence may be established by inference
8. › Whether immunity under s 23(5) conditional on compliance with reporting requirement in s 23(3)
1. Torts
2. › Battery
3. › Claims by prisoners against prison officers
4. › Whether push with open hands constitutes battery
5. › Whether order to 'step back' constitutes order necessary for security or good order of prison
6. › Corrections Act 1986 (Vic), s 23
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact by trial judge
4. › Assessment of credibility and demeanour of witnesses
5. › Whether trial judge entitled to make observations about personality and demeanour

Quick Take

The immunity from liability under s 23(5) of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) for prison officers who use force in accordance with s 23(2) is not conditional upon compliance with the administrative reporting requirement in s 23(3). The elements of the s 23 defence — including the officer's belief that the order was necessary for security or good order — may be established by inference from the circumstances without express evidence on each element.