In this matter, Greg Walsh represented Mr Zaravinos in respect of an action against the State of New South Wales for false arrest and false imprisonment. Mr Zaravinos had attended a police station by appointment for an interview and was arrested successfully by two police on different but related charges, interviewed, charged, fingerprinted, photographed, bailed and released. The prosecutions were after several adjournments discontinued. At first instance the District Court judge found no reasonable grounds for arrest, noting “the case has all the hallmarks of heavy handed and officious use of arbitrary power” and awarded the plaintiff damages.
An appeal was made by both parties to the New South Wales Court of Appeal and significant issues relating to the law of arrest was determined in Mr Zaravinos’ favour.
At paragraph 39, Bryson JA said:
“The time at which Mr Zaravinos was arrested, sooner after 5pm on a Saturday afternoon, was probably close to the nadir of availability of Magistrates and authorised Justices, and also of lawyers able to give advice to persons under arrest. Although authorised Justices are available at a small number of Courts on Sunday, there was really no rational prospect of Mr Zaravinos’ areests ending in anything other than his being granted police bail later that night; there was not imaginably reasons why, with his passport available to be surrendered, a Bail Sergeant would decide to keep him in custody until he could be taken before an authorised Justice on the following day, or Monday. The Trial Judge did not accept the contention that there was a “minor fear” that Mr Zaravinos might abscond but if there were, it was dealt with as fully as it reasonably could be when his passport was brought to the police station by 6pm. As the trial judge rejected the evidence given by Superintendent Jenkins and Ms Horan about their reasons for effecting arrests, conclusions to the effect that the arrests were heavy handed and officious uses of arbitrary power, and that arrests and detention were wrongful, were reasonably open to the Trial Judge and His Honour could hardly find otherwise”.
In this matter Greg Walsh acted for the respondent in respect of a matter heard in the District Court and ultimately heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The case involved a motor vehicle accident and a claim upon an insurance policy – where the term of the police refusing indemnity if, at the time of the event which gave rise to the loss, the motor vehicle was being driven by a person whose faculties were impaired or who was under the influence of alcohol – whether the insurer had established entitlement to refuse indemnity – difficulty of attracting appellate intervention where the trial judge comes to a conclusion in favour of party upon whom the burden of proof does not lie – where there is competing expert evidence – whether trial judge’s conclusions were based on credit where inconsistent with incontrovertibly established facts – whether insured made a fraudulent misrepresentation under s28(2) Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) – whether the insurer is obliged to pay interest in accordance with s57(2) of the Insurance Contracts Act – the appeal was dismissed and the amount awarded by the District Court Judge in the sum of $224,527.00 was not interfered with.
In this matter Greg Walsh represented the appellant, John Clark, in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant pleaded guilty to one count under s52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1990 namely driving his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public causing grievous bodily harm. Christie DCJ imposed a fixed term imprisonment of two (2) years to be served by way of periodic detention. No non-parole period was specified. The appeal was upheld and the Court consisting of Wood CJ, Simpson J and Adams J sentenced the appellant to a suspended sentence.
In this matter Greg Walsh represented the plaintiff in civil proceedings being conducted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The issue that arose was whether the plaintiff’s legal representative could inspect the psychology file of former Detective Michael O’Donnell produced by the Commissioner of Police upon undertaking a note not to copy any part of it and not to disclose its contents to any person, including the plaintiff unless by further order of the Court. Bell J examined the relationship between Part 36 R13 of the Supreme Court Rules and Part 3.10 of the Evidence Act in granting the plaintiff’s legal representative access to the psychology file.
In this matter Greg Walsh successfully represented the plaintiff in an action for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.
Greg Walsh represented a successful applicant in relation to leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and appeal heard by the High Court of Australia on 5 September 2000. The case dealt with the issue of judicial discretion to allow cross-examination of an accused on alleged past misdeeds not directly related to facts and issues and whether the discretion to allow cross examination miscarried. The High Court unanimously held that the trial judge’s discretion had miscarried and quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
In this matter Greg Walsh represented the applicant in respect of an interlocutory application seeking the stay of a s.23 surrender warrant pending the finalisation of the proceedings. The basis of the application, inter alia, was that the Applicant was HIV positive and had been in detention pursuant to a warrant issued under s.19 of the Extradition Act since about June 2000. Mr Chan had been HIV positive for about 13 years and medical evidence was to the effect that his health was very precarious and that his life expectancy would be severely compromised. Stone J granted the application and ordered a stay and released Mr Chan from custody pending finalisation of the proceedings.
In this matter Greg Walsh represented the applicant seeking a review of the determination of the Minister for Justice’s decision under s22 of the Extradition Act that Mr Chan was to be surrendered to Hong Kong authorities. It was argued that the Ministers decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by s22(2) of the Act in that the Minister failed to take into account relevant considerations. Those considerations were:
The increased significance of the Applicant for extradition, trial, and if convicted, a sentence ranging from 3.5 to 5 years given that he is HIV positive and has a life expectancy estimated at only 15 years; and;
Expert forensic documenting examination evidence, concluding that the signatures were allegedly forged by the Applicant, being the basis of the forgery charges giving rise to the extradition request may well be genuine.
Stone J dismissed the application and held, that in effect, the Minister for Justice had not failed to take into account material consideration.
In this matter, Greg Walsh acted for the plaintiffs in an action against the State of New South Wales alleging negligence and breach of duty of care. The case raised issues involving welfare of children, claims of nervous distress, psychiatric injury, personal and financial loss as a result of the allegations, responsibilitie4s of the Director-General and departmental officers, allegations of negligence against the Director-General and departmental officers investigating, reporting and acting in allegations – with a duty owed to parents and grandparents by the Director-General and Departmental officers in investigating, reporting and acting on allegations of child abuse.
Greg Walsh acted for the plaintiffs in this action and successfully sought amendments to the pleadings in relation to an act of malicious prosecution and abuse of process generally.
Represented a successful plaintiff in a civil action arising from the death of their elderly mother in a motor vehicle accident.
Greg Walsh represented 68 plaintiffs in a successful action against the State of New South Wales arising from their unlawful detention and imprisonment arising from raids conducted by Officers of the Department of Community Services and New South Wales Police. The individual plaintiffs were successful in obtaining verdicts against the defendants.