Lamepard-Trevorrow Case

CASE ANALYSIS: State of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow [2010] SASC 56
Q1: This case involves a number of claims in tort; for the purposes of the current part of the course we will be concentrating on the claim for “false imprisonment” (sometimes also called “wrongful detention”). (We will consider the case again in semester 2 when we examine the tort of “negligence”.) By reviewing the headnote, how many different torts were being sued for? List them.
A:
- Tort of Misfeasance in Public Office
- Tort of Negligence
- Tort of False Imprisonment
Q2: Using the headnote and the summary of facts given in the judgment, briefly outline the sequence of events that led to Mr Lampard-Trevorrow suffering harm. In particular, which of those events
The incident occurred without the consent nor knowledge of his parents and he was then placed into informal foster care. His mother was denied any efforts for his return. Ten years later, the plaintiff suffered behavioural problems and was returned to his mother without considerable preparation of the arrangement. Trevorrow was institutionalised multiple times and his mental illness continued much into his adult life.
In particular, the taking of Bruce Trevorrow by government officers and the unlawful placement of him into foster care, where he remained for ten years; has ultimately given rise to the tort of false
Q4: Is it necessary for a plaintiff to be aware of the restraint on his or her freedom in order to succeed in a claim for false imprisonment?
A: No, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to be aware of the restraint on his or her freedom in order to succeed in a claim for false imprisonment.
Doyle CJ, Duggan and White JJ: …There is a solid body of authority supporting the conclusion that the fact that a plaintiff is not aware of a restraint on him or her, or is not physically able to exercise his or her freedom of movement, does not mean that wrongful imprisonment cannot be made out (see LH8 [11.5.18C]).
Q5: Which authorities does the Court rely on to resolve this question? How do they deal with the main authority that seems to run counter to the others?
A: Cases that the court considered whilst determining the outcome of SA v Lampard-Trevorrow were particularly; Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919) 122 LT 44; R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust; Ex Parte L [1999] 1 AC 458; Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 2 All ER 521; Go v The Queen (1990) 102 FLR 299; Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597