Case History

On Wednesday, 25 February 2004, two sheriff’s officers, Mr Davies and Ms Lomas entered the home of Mr and Mrs Wilson at Leonay with a property seizure order relating to unpaid traffic fines owed by Mr Wilson to the State. A conversation occurred between the officers and the Wilsons through a screen door and then an incident occurred in which the Wilsons alleged that Officer Davies assaulted Mr Wilson by kicking the screen door into his face and the Sheriff’s officers failed to leave the premises notwithstanding a clear instruction by Mr Wilson to go. The Sheriff’s officers claimed that Mr Wilson charged out the door and assaulted Officer Davies who then placed Mr Wilson under arrest. Mr Wilson then locked himself inside of the house and the officers left the premises. The officers went to the street where the police were called. They observed Mr Wilson to emerge from the house and get into his car in the driveway. Officer Davies entered the premises onto the driveway and removed the keys from the car. A physical altercation occurred between the two men during which Officer Lomas came onto the premises and sprayed Mr Wilson with capsicum spray. There was

At 7.15am on 22 November 2006 Iktimal Hage-Ali was arrested at her family home at Punchbowl. She was then 22 years of age. She was arrested allegedly on suspicion of supplying cocaine. She was transported to Bankstown Police Station where she arrived at approximately 7.35am. She was interviewed from 9.00am onwards. She was released at 10.39am and was not charged. Ms Hage-Ali asserted that her arrest was unlawful and her subsequent imprisonment false. If the arrest was unlawful, it followed that the imprisonment was false. The basis of the assertion of the unlawfulness of the arrest was that it was non-compliant with the mandatory requirements of s.99 Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibility) Act, 2001 (NSW). Ms Hage-Ali asserted that the events surrounding her arrest and detention represented aggravating circumstances of the wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. She claimed compensatory (including aggravated) and exemplary damages arising from her arrest and imprisonment. She was successful in receiving an award of damages of $18,705 on 14 October 2009 after an 18 day trial. In the period between August/November 2006 Ms Hage Ali purchased or received on credit small amounts of cocaine (either 0.5 or 1 gram) from Mr B. Her purchases in the

In this matter Greg Walsh acted for David Wilson, the plaintiff in an action against the State of New South Wales. A subpoena had been issued seeking the production of documents from the Commissioner of Police and objection was taken to the production of those documents. Mr Wilson had sued the State of New South Wales for wrongful acts alleged against certain Sheriff officers in its service. The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass, assault, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, trespass to goods and detinue. Complaints were made as to the conduct of the officers involved which became the subject of various investigations and other inquiries by a number of authorities including the New South Wales Ombudsman of a disciplinary nature. The subpoena sought the production of documents brought into existence as a result of these complaints and their consequences, which the defendant resisted relying on s.170 of the Police Act,1990; s.56 of the Civil Procedure Act, 2005 and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, 2005. On 31 January 2008, Walmsley J ordered the defendant give discovery of certain disputed categories of arising out of the complaints, but left open for subsequent consideration various issues surrounding production and inspection of the

In this matter Greg Walsh appeared for the applicants who had successfully resisted an application for extradition by New Zealand. It was argued that costs were discretionary and notwithstanding the fact that the applicants had successfully resisted extradition, they were not entitled to their costs. Madgwick J observed that s43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) gives the Court a wide and unstructured discretion. His Honour referred to the decision in Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 in which the High Court had considered the discretion in relation to the prosecution for a summary criminal offence where the Defendant had succeeded. The majority of the High Court had emphasised the compensatory nature of a costs order and the inadequacy, in a criminal law context, with the fact that the charge was laid in the public interest and that the informant acted reasonably in laying the charge as a reason to deprive the successful defendant with a costs order; per Mason CJ at 544; Toohey J at 563 and McHugh J at 569. Madgwick J ordered New Zealand to pay the applicant’s costs.

In this matter, Greg Walsh represented A in respect of proceedings for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest and abuse of process against the State of New South Wales and a police officer. The District Court had found for the plaintiff in respect of his claim for malicious prosecution, however the remainder of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. In determining whether the respondents had acted without reasonable and probably cause in laying the charges, the trial Judge applied the test stated by Jordan CJ and Mitchell v John Hine and Son Ltd [1978] 38 SRNSW 466. The Court per Beazley JA (Mason, Pearlman AJA agreeing) held that: i. To succeed in action for malicious prosecution, the accused must show that a prosecutor acted maliciously and with want of reasonable and probable cause; Sharp v Biggs (1932) 48 CLR 1; ii. A prosecutor will act without reasonable and probably cause where an accused can show that a prosecutor lacked an honest and reasonable belief that the laying of a charge against an accused was justified. Sharp v Biggs (1932) 48 CLR 81; Commonwealth Life Assurance Society Ltd v Brain (1935) 53 CLR 343 (approved); Mitchell v John Hine & Son Ltd

In this matter, Greg Walsh represented Mr Zaravinos in respect of an action against the State of New South Wales for false arrest and false imprisonment. Mr Zaravinos had attended a police station by appointment for an interview and was arrested successfully by two police on different but related charges, interviewed, charged, fingerprinted, photographed, bailed and released. The prosecutions were after several adjournments discontinued. At first instance the District Court judge found no reasonable grounds for arrest, noting “the case has all the hallmarks of heavy handed and officious use of arbitrary power” and awarded the plaintiff damages. An appeal was made by both parties to the New South Wales Court of Appeal and significant issues relating to the law of arrest was determined in Mr Zaravinos’ favour. At paragraph 39, Bryson JA said: “The time at which Mr Zaravinos was arrested, sooner after 5pm on a Saturday afternoon, was probably close to the nadir of availability of Magistrates and authorised Justices, and also of lawyers able to give advice to persons under arrest. Although authorised Justices are available at a small number of Courts on Sunday, there was really no rational prospect of Mr Zaravinos’ areests ending in anything

In this matter Greg Walsh acted for the respondent in respect of a matter heard in the District Court and ultimately heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The case involved a motor vehicle accident and a claim upon an insurance policy – where the term of the police refusing indemnity if, at the time of the event which gave rise to the loss, the motor vehicle was being driven by a person whose faculties were impaired or who was under the influence of alcohol – whether the insurer had established entitlement to refuse indemnity – difficulty of attracting appellate intervention where the trial judge comes to a conclusion in favour of party upon whom the burden of proof does not lie – where there is competing expert evidence – whether trial judge’s conclusions were based on credit where inconsistent with incontrovertibly established facts – whether insured made a fraudulent misrepresentation under s28(2) Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) – whether the insurer is obliged to pay interest in accordance with s57(2) of the Insurance Contracts Act – the appeal was dismissed and the amount awarded by the District Court Judge in the sum of $224,527.00 was not

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the appellant, John Clark, in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant pleaded guilty to one count under s52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1990 namely driving his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public causing grievous bodily harm. Christie DCJ imposed a fixed term imprisonment of two (2) years to be served by way of periodic detention. No non-parole period was specified. The appeal was upheld and the Court consisting of Wood CJ, Simpson J and Adams J sentenced the appellant to a suspended sentence.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the plaintiff in civil proceedings being conducted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The issue that arose was whether the plaintiff’s legal representative could inspect the psychology file of former Detective Michael O’Donnell produced by the Commissioner of Police upon undertaking a note not to copy any part of it and not to disclose its contents to any person, including the plaintiff unless by further order of the Court. Bell J examined the relationship between Part 36 R13 of the Supreme Court Rules and Part 3.10 of the Evidence Act in granting the plaintiff’s legal representative access to the psychology file.

In this matter Greg Walsh successfully represented the plaintiff in an action for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

Greg Walsh represented a successful applicant in relation to leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and appeal heard by the High Court of Australia on 5 September 2000. The case dealt with the issue of judicial discretion to allow cross-examination of an accused on alleged past misdeeds not directly related to facts and issues and whether the discretion to allow cross examination miscarried. The High Court unanimously held that the trial judge’s discretion had miscarried and quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the applicant in respect of an interlocutory application seeking the stay of a s.23 surrender warrant pending the finalisation of the proceedings. The basis of the application, inter alia, was that the Applicant was HIV positive and had been in detention pursuant to a warrant issued under s.19 of the Extradition Act since about June 2000. Mr Chan had been HIV positive for about 13 years and medical evidence was to the effect that his health was very precarious and that his life expectancy would be severely compromised. Stone J granted the application and ordered a stay and released Mr Chan from custody pending finalisation of the proceedings.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the applicant seeking a review of the determination of the Minister for Justice’s decision under s22 of the Extradition Act that Mr Chan was to be surrendered to Hong Kong authorities. It was argued that the Ministers decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by s22(2) of the Act in that the Minister failed to take into account relevant considerations. Those considerations were: The increased significance of the Applicant for extradition, trial, and if convicted, a sentence ranging from 3.5 to 5 years given that he is HIV positive and has a life expectancy estimated at only 15 years; and; Expert forensic documenting examination evidence, concluding that the signatures were allegedly forged by the Applicant, being the basis of the forgery charges giving rise to the extradition request may well be genuine. Stone J dismissed the application and held, that in effect, the Minister for Justice had not failed to take into account material consideration.

In this matter, Greg Walsh acted for the plaintiffs in an action against the State of New South Wales alleging negligence and breach of duty of care. The case raised issues involving welfare of children, claims of nervous distress, psychiatric injury, personal and financial loss as a result of the allegations, responsibilitie4s of the Director-General and departmental officers, allegations of negligence against the Director-General and departmental officers investigating, reporting and acting in allegations – with a duty owed to parents and grandparents by the Director-General and Departmental officers in investigating, reporting and acting on allegations of child abuse.

Greg Walsh acted for the plaintiffs in this action and successfully sought amendments to the pleadings in relation to an act of malicious prosecution and abuse of process generally.

Represented a successful plaintiff in a civil action arising from the death of their elderly mother in a motor vehicle accident.

Greg Walsh represented 68 plaintiffs in a successful action against the State of New South Wales arising from their unlawful detention and imprisonment arising from raids conducted by Officers of the Department of Community Services and New South Wales Police. The individual plaintiffs were successful in obtaining verdicts against the defendants.

Represented the plaintiff in civil proceedings for defamation in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and obtained an award of damages for the plaintiff.

Represented Mr Woodham in a civil action for defamation arising from publication in The Australian newspaper. The jury entered a verdict as to findings in favour of the plaintiff.

Represented on a pro bono basis an Aboriginal plaintiff in a Civil Action with respect to professional negligence at Wagga Wagga.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the plaintiffs, Dr Rapson and his wife, in a civil action in respect of malicious prosecution. The plaintiff’s were successful and verdict was entered in their favour, each receiving $100,000.