Memorandum for the Negligence Ragnar v State of Victoria

The factual questions concern whether the courthouse Registry staff was negligent in failing to include the different bail conditions in the Notice of Continuance of Bail and in failing to notify the state police of the different bail conditions. Legal questions include whether the state police acted in good faith, whether the risk was predictable, whether there were any alternatives to the forceful arrest, and whether there is enough evidence to prove causation. The main issue is whether the Victoria State acted negligently, thereby causing Ragnar possible economic loss and even defamation. This issue will be addressed in the subsequent sections.

Duty of Care

For the negligence claim to be successful, it must be sufficiently proven that Victoria State owed Ragnarr such a duty. The general duty of care by the state will exist if it was reasonably foreseeable that a person under bail, considering the prevailing circumstances, might be subjected to shame and/or public ridicule if reasonable care by the state was not taken. The shame and public ridicule amount to a defamation stance perpetrated by the Victorian State government. The key element in negligence claim is reasonable foreseeability of the action by the state police. Foreseeability is dependent on the behavior of the individual during the period after being granted the bail. According to the Australian Law Handbook, a person is liable for defamation if the presented action (by the perpetrator) taints the public image of the affected individual. It is highly likely that the actions (arrest and transport to court) by the state police tainted the image of Ragnarr. Ragnarr was compliant to his bail conditions by reporting to the Swan Hill Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So long as the bail conditions are fulfilled by the individual, the state has a duty to ensure they act discreetly and fairly as not to perpetrate unjust or bad image of the individual under bail.

The State of Victoria might cite the media as the perpetrator of negative publicity, but the actions by the State of Victoria are the catalyst of this effect. Ragnarr was diligent in following the conditions of the updated bail. The forceful arrest and transport to court by State police portrayed a bad public image. The newspaper report is only a reflection of the bad image perpetrated by the State of Victoria.

Standard of Care

The standard of care is the omission to do something which a normal person would do, or doing something which a sensible person would not do. In the above case, the standard applied is that of a sensible police department in the State of Victoria. A sensible police department is expected to verify the claims by an individual on bail before proceeding to court trial. Even though initial conditions were assumed as upheld, the concerns by Ragnarr should not be neglected. They should be checked with the state attorney, for any modifications, before Ragnarr is presented to the court for contempt of the conditions of the bail. This clearly makes the police department partly responsible for verifying the conditions of the bail, but fully responsible for assessing the fulfillment of the bail requirements by Ragnarr.

Risk must be foreseeable and significant. Ragnarr’s forceful arrest and presentation to court exposed him to public ridicule and other resultant effects thereof. It is quite sensible to decipher that forceful arrest under unverified claims exposes one to negative publicity, thereby making the risk foreseeable. This risk was significant. Being foreseeable and significant, what remains is what a sensible person would do. The State of Victoria may cite the argument that the risk of Ragnarr’s forceful arrest and possible conviction may have been foreseeable, but the level of the case and even the risk made it difficult to forecast such impacts. In this case, Ragnarr will argue that a reasonable state will treat all cases equally as each holds a level of importance to the individual to be presented to the court. Also, a sensible court administration would ensure that the state department is furnished with the accurate and updated official documentation regarding the individuals under bail.

It is highly unlikely that Ragnarr breached the standard of care. However, in such a case, counter arguments must be prepared.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability is the possible impact of an act of negligence on a person. Ragnarr’s forceful arrest and presentation to court displayed a bad image of Ragnarr to the public. The vicarious liability in this case is economic loss. Due to a tainted public image, Ragnarr would find it difficult to get into meaningful employment in the region. This would deny Ragnarr possible source of income.

The State of Victoria might cite the argument that Ragnarr’s economic loss is subjective, as it is not foreseeable whether Ragnar would enter a meaningful employment beyond his current portfolio. In his defense, Ragnarr should cite his career exploits, intended projects and/or current interview invitations which he is likely to miss out due to bad publicity.

Causation: Factual Causation and Scope of Liability

To determine causation in Ragnarr’s case, we have to consider the factual causation, and the scope of liability. We perform the initial test for factual causation by asking the question: ‘but for’ the failure by the Registrar of the court house to provide accurate Notice of Continuance of Bail, and to inform the police department of the updated conditions, would have Ragnarr be exposed to bad publicity and possible loss of income? The state might argue that even without breaching the standard of care, Ragnarr’s eventual trial would have perpetrated the same effect. The state of Victoria might argue that the forceful arrest and presentation to court just increased the risk of bad publicity, bad did not actually perpetrate it as Ragnarr’s initial case is the main perpetrator. The plaintiff, Ragnarr has to prove that the forceful arrest and presentation to court actually brought the negative publicity and possible economic loss. In his defense, Ragnarr would argue that bad publicity while fulfilling the bail conditions is contrary to the law. It is comparable to being arrested for being on the right side of the law, which contradicts the essence of the law.

Scope of Liability

If the causation is actually established, the court is likely to find a limited scope. The Registrar of the court house and the police department are all liable for the harm on Ragnarr. This harm was foreseeable. The registrar and the police department are expected to act professionally in performance of their duties. In this case, they might have been performing their tasks, but in an unprofessional way. Therefore, the state’s performance if duty would not exclude Ragnarr’s liability.

Affirmative Action: The Duty to Act

The state has a legal obligation to protect the rights and freedom of its citizens. As such, the state of Victoria is liable to protect Ragnarr from any harm or effect arising from their negligent act. They should offer apology and pull down media depicting negative publicity about Ragnarr.

Conclusion

It is clear the State of Victoria is liable for the negligent act in Ragnarr’s case. The negligence act was the perpetrator of negative publicity and possible economic loss. The liability of the State of Victoria is highly dependent on the evidence and arguments presented forth in this paper.

Works Cited

Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) 218 CLR 1.

Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 223 CLR 331.

Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M., & Trindade, F. The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Barker, Kit. Negligent Misstatement in Australia-Resolving the Uncertain Legacy of Esanda: Chapter 13. 2015.

Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256.

Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364.

Burns, Kylie. “Distorting the Law: Politics, Media and the Litigation Crisis: An Australian Perspective.” 15 (2007): 195.

Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW).

Commonwealth v Cornwell (2007) 229 CLR 519.

DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (NSW).

Dwyer v Calco Timbers Pty Ltd (2008) 234 CLR 124.

Hickson v Goodman Fielder Ltd (2009) 237 CLR 130.

Hunter, J., Henning, T., Edmond, G., McMahon, R., Metzger, J., & San Roque, M. “The Trial: Principles, Process and Evidence.” LAW INSTITUTE JOURNAL (2016).

Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352.

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568.

Queensland v Stephenson (2006) 226 CLR 197.

Stuhmcke, Pamela Stewart and Anita. “Lacunae and Litigants: A Study of Negligence Cases in the High Court of Australia in the First Decade of the 21st Century and Beyond.” Melbourne University Law 38 (2014): 151.

Sweedman v Transport Accident Commission (2006).

Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1.

“Wrongs Act (2006).”