Lewis v ACT

[2018] ACTSC 19

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › False Imprisonment
3. › Damages
4. › Nominal damages
5. › Whether substantial damages available where plaintiff would have been lawfully detained had correct procedures been followed
6. › Whether aggravated damages available
1. Human Rights
2. › Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
3. › Right to compensation for unlawful detention
4. › Section 18(7)
5. › Whether section creates free-standing enforceable right to compensation
6. › Whether vindicatory or public law damages available
7. › Comparison with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
1. Human Rights
2. › Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
3. › Remedial framework
4. › Whether Act provides for public law remedy of damages
5. › Distinction between standard-setting and rights-creating legislation
6. › Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 18(1), 18(2), 18(7), 40B, 40C
1. Criminal Law
2. › Procedure
3. › Periodic detention
4. › Cancellation of periodic detention order
5. › Procedural fairness
6. › Whether invalid cancellation rendered subsequent imprisonment unlawful
7. › Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)

Quick Take

Section 18(7) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) does not create a free-standing cause of action for compensation for unlawful detention; it states a standard met by the existing tort of false imprisonment. No public law remedy of vindicatory damages is available under the ACT Human Rights Act for breach of ss 18(1) and (2). Where a person is falsely imprisoned but would inevitably have been lawfully detained had correct procedures been followed, only nominal damages are recoverable.