The Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal has recently handed down its ruling in the case of State of NSW v Madden, with a number of key issues determined upon. The findings are relevant in assessing the unfair treatment of individuals by law enforcement and provide some clear and obvious issues which are unfortunately repeated in the Australian justice system.
Background to the case
In December 2019 Ms Ebonie Madden and Mr Dylan Turner encountered police in South Penrith, New South Wales. Police requested them to stop and, during the interaction, a bag carried by Mr Turner was searched, revealing a knife and new male clothing.
Madden denied knowledge of the knife but gave an unclear explanation about the clothing. She was arrested for possessing a knife in public and later charged with possession of suspected stolen clothing and resisting an officer.
However, crucial details were omitted from the fact sheet, including Madden's denial of knowledge about the knife and Turner's possession of the bag. Madden was initially refused bail and had her parole revoked until June 17, when a successful bail application was made. She pleaded not guilty to all charges and eventually had them dismissed in October 2020, when relevant evidence was excluded.
The trial of Ebonie Madden
The primary judge made several determinations regarding the case. Firstly, they found that the evidence provided by the police officers lacked credibility. Secondly, they ruled that the initial stopping and detention of Ms. Madden constituted an unlawful exercise of power, thereby categorising all physical contact with her during that detention as battery. Thirdly, the judge concluded that Ms. Madden's arrest was unlawful, resulting in her false imprisonment during her time in custody. Lastly, the judge determined that Ms. Madden had been subjected to malicious prosecution concerning the three charges brought against her.
As such, the State of New South Wales appealed against the rulings.
The case on appeal
In hearing the appeal, Bell CJ, Leeming JA and Stern JA looked at the legality and fairness of the proceedings involving Ms. Madden. The primary points in question were:
- Whether the trial judge's actions might have created a perception of bias;
- The legality of Ms. Madden's detention and arrest;
- The applicability of specific sections of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) - which looks at whether there was deprivation of a person’s common law right to enjoy freedom of movement in his or her community; and
- Whether the primary judge made errors in determining if the charges against Ms. Madden were brought with reasonable cause and potentially malicious intent.
Court of appeal outcomes
The appeal by the State of New South Wales against the District Court’s decision was dismissed, upholding the District Court’s findings that the state was vicariously liable for police officers' actions that constituted battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
Although Justice Leeming dissented on the lawfulness of detention, the majority upheld the decision. Justice Leeming held that detention was warranted because there were grounds for one of the police officers to reasonably suspect that Ms Madden had something in her possession to be used in connection with an offence.
Additionally, the Court found that the damages awarded to Ms. Madden totaling $320,000, along with interest and costs, was entirely reasonable and fair.
This case summary was written by Sophia Baldi.
Robinson Gill specialises in representing individuals in personal injury cases, primarily against Victoria Police and Corrections Victoria, both of which are indemnified by the State of Victoria.
We recognise that seeking legal counsel can be a daunting decision, and navigating the legal system can be complex. Our team is committed to providing you with comprehensive support throughout the legal process to achieve the best possible outcome. We tailor our approach to your needs, collaborating with advocates, experts and services.
Alongside our casework, we actively advocate for improved police accountability. We collaborate with community legal centres, human rights organisations, barristers and other stakeholders to push for systemic improvements. Additionally, we engage with various government branches on matters related to police accountability.
Contact our team today.
How can I learn more?
Jeremy King.
Principal.
- Injury Law & Police Misconduct
- 03 9890 3321
- Email Address: j.king@robinsongill.com.au
Jeremy King is a Principal Lawyer and head of the Police and Prisons team at Robinson Gill. With an imposing track record of high-profile actions against the Victorian police, Jeremy is at the forefront of the fight for police oversight and accountability. Through both his landmark litigation and advocacy work, he has played a key role in shaping legislative reform across Australia.
Some other resources you
might find helpful
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Property Transactions: How Buyers Can Protect Themselves
In Australian property transactions, buyers often rely on information provided by developers, agents, and vendors when making significant financial decisions. Where that information is false, incomplete, or misleading, the consequences for buyers can be substantial.
Tsakirios v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 132
In Tsakirios v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 132, the New South Wales Court of Appeal found that an investigating police officer breached her statutory disclosure duty by failing to disclose information about alternative suspects. The decision confirms that police disclosure obligations are public duties.
Navigating the “Snakes and Ladders” of 130-Week Weekly Payment Part 2: Disputes, Medical Panels and Hidden Risks
Workers and their lawyers should exercise caution when disputing weekly payment termination decisions as the outcome can impact other entitlements. It is now more essential than ever that workers receive legal advice regarding the review of their weekly payment entitlements at 130 weeks.