{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory
[2020] HCA 26
Tags
No tags available
Case
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory
[2020] HCA 26
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJSTEVEN JAMES LEWIS APPELLANTANDTHE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY RESPONDENTLewis v Australian Capital Territory[2020] HCA 26Date of Hearing: 2 June 2020Date of Judgment: 5 August 2020C14/2019ORDERAppeal dismissed with costs. On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital TerritoryRepresentationP D Herzfeld with P A Tierney for the appellant (instructed by Ken Cush & Associates)P J F Garrisson SC, Solicitor-General for the Australian Capital Territory, with H Younan for the respondent (instructed by ACT Government Solicitor)S P Donaghue QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, with C J Tran for the Commonwealth, intervening (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSLewis v Australian Capital TerritoryDamages – Tort – False imprisonment – Where appellant convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment served by periodic detention – Where appellant breached obligations of periodic detention – Where appellant liable to arrest without warrant – Where Sentence Administration Board ("Board") required by statute to decide to cancel appellant's periodic detention – Where Board's decision was held invalid for lack of procedural fairness – Where appellant unlawfully imprisoned in full-time detention for 82 days following Board's invalid decision – Where appellant's liberty already qualified and attenuated – Where appellant's imprisonment would otherwise have lawfully occurred – Where appellant awarded nominal damages – Whether award of only nominal damages appropriate – Whether appellant entitled to substantial compensatory damages – Whether vindicatory damages available.Words...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory
[2020] HCA 26
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJSTEVEN JAMES LEWIS APPELLANTANDTHE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY RESPONDENTLewis v Australian Capital Territory[2020] HCA 26Date of Hearing: 2 June 2020Date of Judgment: 5 August 2020C14/2019ORDERAppeal dismissed with costs. On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital TerritoryRepresentationP D Herzfeld with P A Tierney for the appellant (instructed by Ken Cush & Associates)P J F Garrisson SC, Solicitor-General for the Australian Capital Territory, with H Younan for the respondent (instructed by ACT Government Solicitor)S P Donaghue QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, with C J Tran for the Commonwealth, intervening (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSLewis v Australian Capital TerritoryDamages – Tort – False imprisonment – Where appellant convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment served by periodic detention – Where appellant breached obligations of periodic detention – Where appellant liable to arrest without warrant – Where Sentence Administration Board ("Board") required by statute to decide to cancel appellant's periodic detention – Where Board's decision was held invalid for lack of procedural fairness – Where appellant unlawfully imprisoned in full-time detention for 82 days following Board's invalid decision – Where appellant's liberty already qualified and attenuated – Where appellant's imprisonment would otherwise have lawfully occurred – Where appellant awarded nominal damages – Whether award of only nominal damages appropriate – Whether appellant entitled to substantial compensatory damages – Whether vindicatory damages available.Words...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>