20th October, invasion on hearsay, no warrant, no evidence, no court documents, no documents, unlawful forced entry, damages to heritage property.
Romani v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 49
68 Nonetheless, aggravated damages may be awarded to…
20th October, invasion on hearsay, no warrant, no evidence, no court documents, no documents, unlawful forced entry, damages to heritage property.
Romani v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 49
68 Nonetheless, aggravated damages may be awarded to vindicate a plaintiff’s interest against invasion of the exclusive possession of the plaintiff and this interest extends to the freedom from disturbance of those persons present there with the leave of the plaintiff, at least as family members or as an incident of some other bona fide domestic relationship: NSW v Ibbett at [31]. Thus, in the present case, the affront to Maia and Sanchia’s son, who were present and participated in or observed the incident, because of the police officers’ conduct and manner of questioning which caused them to feel intimidated as well as anxious, distressed, worried and traumatised, amounted to intangible injury to Sanchia which aggravated the infringement of her right to enjoy exclusive and quiet possession of the land by herself and her family free from uninvited intrusion and disturbance.
69 Consequently, in the present case, I am satisfied that Sanchia is also entitled to an award of aggravated damages having regard to the effect on her and her family members of the circumstances and manner of the police officers’ wrongdoing, especially their entering the property despite the locked gate and the signs, their failure to leave the property when requested, their questioning of Maia in a manner that was perceived as intimidating, their comments to Maia about returning that were also perceived as intimidating and their general attitude that was perceived as disrespectful.
and
Plenty v Dillion (1991) 171 CLR 635
5. The proposition that any person who “set(s) his foot upon my ground without my licence … is liable to an action” in trespass is qualified by exceptions both at common law and by statute. The first ground relied on to authorize or excuse the entry of Constables Dillon and Will on Mr Plenty’s farm on the occasion of the attempted service of the fresh summons was the common law rule known as the third rule in Semayne’s Case (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a, at p 91b (77 ER 194, at p 195) which reads:
” In all cases when the King is party, the sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party’s house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the (King)’s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors”.
