Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:34

From: Bill Madden

Subject: Couch v AG

In Australia, the recent related decision of Kirkland-Veenstra v Stuart [2008] VSCA 32 (Duty of care — police — failure to exercise statutory power — power to detain mentally ill — suicide of person not detained) was the subject of a successful application for leave to appeal to the High Court. The transcript of that application can be found here.

Rosemary Tobin wrote:

Colleagues may be interested in a rather disturbing and unsatisfactory decision from the Supreme Court of New Zealand - Susan Couch v AG [2008] NZSC 45.

The question was whether the Probation Service might owe a duty of care to the victim of a criminal assault by a parolee under its supervision. (The Court unanimously decided it might.) It was a strike out application but some of the comments in the decision of Elias CJ and Anderson J come close to saying a duty could be owed to the world at large. As Susan Couch was covered for her severe injuries by NZ's accident compensation scheme any claim is for exemplary damages only. The other three judges, Tipping, McGrath and Blanchard JJ are rather more circumspect and would more closely circumscribe any duty.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>