Date: 29 October 2019
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Judicial Officer: Harrison J
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: N/A
Rights considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 13.4, 14.28

Keywords: Policing; Frivolous and vexatious complaints

Human rights breaches by the NSW Police were argued by the plaintiff, but the court considered the argument to be irrelevant to the case.

This case concerned an amended statement of claim. The defendant was requesting further particulars and maintained that he had not received a sufficient response to enable him to formulate or file a proper defence. The defendant argued that the pleadings and the plaintiff's claim should be struck out and dismissed in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) for being ‘frivolous or vexatious’: at [3]. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was included as an argument by the plaintiff, but the court did not find it necessary to assess this argument, nor did the court consider the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to be relevant to the case.

Harrison J noted: ‘For example, Mr. Flowers alleges that there have been Australian and international human rights breaches by the NSW Police spanning 14 years. These include various breaches of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK), the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is not apparent from the amended statement of claim how these various enactments or treaties inform or support the existence of a viable cause of action against the present defendant’: at [30].

His Honour made several orders, including striking out the amended statement of claim: at [36].

Visit the reported judgement: Flowers v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1467