A Canberra man who was wrongly imprisoned for 24 hours after police were handed incorrect information about his bail conditions has successfully sued the ACT government.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Jason Arthur Monaghan, 44, faced criminal charges when he went to the ACT Supreme Court to have his bail conditions changed in March 2011.
He was given permission to report to police three times a week instead of every day, but an oversight within the court registry meant that change wasn't relayed to police.
Mr Monaghan was arrested at Woden police station one morning a few days later for failing to comply with his bail conditions.
Police records showed Mr Monaghan had yelled, screamed and was "highly aggressive" when he was put inside a holding cell.
He was handcuffed and later taken to the ACT Watch House in Civic, where he remained until he was taken to court the next morning.
Mr Monaghan was brought before a magistrate about midday and released on bail.
He later sued the ACT government for negligence in the Supreme Court, arguing his arrest and detention were a breach of care and he was eligible for compensation.
Mr Monaghan argued authorities had been negligent in failing to take steps to inform police of the varied bail conditions, and for not having an appropriate system in place for administering those conditions.
The government argued there had been no duty of care or breach of duty and there was no evidence of psychiatric injury.
In a decision handed down this week, Associate Justice David Mossop found government staff had breached their duty of care in failing to notify the AFP the information conveyed had been incorrect once they became aware of the error.
He found the government did have a duty of care to Mr Monaghan, who he said was particularly vulnerable due to chronic mental illness and depended on others to do what was necessary to give effect to his bail conditions.
Associate Justice Mossop noted Mr Monaghan had been handcuffed, searched and suffered a loss of liberty while he was detained, but said he had not been injured or experienced any ongoing effects from the incident.
"I can infer that he was likely to have suffered some upset, anger and a sense of injustice at being arrested in circumstances when he did not expect it and when he did not consider that he should have been arrested," he said.
He awarded Mr Monaghan $2,453 in damages. No order was made on costs.
