A landmark legal ruling setting out the duty of care New South Wales police owe to people attending protests has been overturned on appeal, denying an Invasion Day marcher $800,000 in compensation. Demand and force her to repay A$103,000 in legal fees.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal made the ruling shortly before Christmas, overturning an earlier ruling that police owed a duty of care to a woman attending a protest who was a bystander to an arrest. and was knocked down and injured during the protest.
The woman, Laura Cullen, was one of an estimated 5,000 people who attended an Invasion Day rally in Sydney on January 26, 2017.
At one point during the march, the rally stopped on Buckland Street in Alexandria and a speaker attempted to light the Australian flag on fire with lighter fluid, according to the verdict.
A police officer filming a firefighting operation was hit by a protester, causing the camera she was holding to fall to the ground. Another officer, SLC Damian Livermore, tried to move through the crowd to arrest protesters.
During the arrest, Karen, who was not involved in the incidents, was knocked to the ground and injured, the verdict said. She suffers from retrograde amnesia, which means she has no memory of attending the rally.
A Supreme Court judge ruled in 2023 that the officer “acted recklessly or unreasonably” when making the arrest because he “ignored the substantial potential to cause harm to nearby persons.” Cullen was ordered to pay $800,000 in damages, plus legal fees.
The decision is seen as important for clarifying police responsibilities towards people taking part in protests.
But on appeal, the court found in a second ruling that Karen failed to prove the officer’s actions caused her injuries.
Judges Fabian Gleeson and Jeremy Kirk found that “clear and significant criminal conduct” at another protest led to the arrest, “and the difficulty of making a lawful arrest was resulting in injuries to the responder.”
Newsletter Promotion Post
“There is no doubt that if the defendant had been harmed she would not have been harmed in this way. [Operational Services Group] “The police did not act as they did,” the judgment said. “But for legal purposes the chain of causation between their actions and her injuries was broken.”
The court also ruled that Cullen could not claim damages for assault, saying: “It is clear that Livermore was unaware of the defendant’s presence and that he did not intend to have any contact with her.”
Judge Richard White dissented. He found that “the police had foreseen the risk of harm alleged by Ms Cullen in the planning of the event” and recognized that “sudden and unexpected movements by rally participants could result in police officers being assaulted or obstructed as a result of police intervention” and that the same The risk also applies to protesters.
However, all judges rejected suggestions from the state’s lawyers that “police owed no duty of care to anyone taking part in a protest march” and said officers were still required to “take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to those taking part in a protest march” risk of harm”. “Proximity Action Response”.
The decision means Karen is no longer eligible for $800,000 in compensation, and the court ordered her to repay $103,000 in legal fees and state legal fees.