In Camilleri v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWDC 329, the District Court of New South Wales awarded damages to a man who was unlawfully detained by police, whose home was entered without lawful authority, and who was maliciously prosecuted over the possession of prohibited weapons. The decision highlights the importance of police acting within their statutory powers and providing accurate information when seeking a person’s involuntary detention for mental health assessment.
Background
The proceedings arose from an incident on 7 January 2022, when police attended Michael Camilleri’s home in Port Macquarie after receiving a report that he had threatened self-harm during a telephone conversation with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
Mr Camilleri maintained that he was not suicidal and that his remarks had been made out of frustration over debts. During the interaction, Senior Constable Richards sought to seize Mr Camilleri’s registered firearms. After threatening to force entry, the officer entered the premises and removed the firearms, subsequently discovering prohibited butterfly knives.
Mr Camilleri was detained and taken by ambulance to Port Macquarie Base Hospital. Information supplied by police contributed to his assessment and involuntary detention under the mental health legislation. He was later transferred to Coffs Harbour Base Hospital, where a further psychiatric assessment recorded no active risk of suicide or harm. He was discharged on 11 January 2022.
Mr Camilleri was subsequently charged with possessing prohibited weapons under s 7 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW). He brought civil proceedings against the State of New South Wales, alleging trespass, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
The lawfulness of the police entry and detention
A central issue was whether police had lawful authority to enter Mr Camilleri’s home and seize his firearms.
The Court considered the circumstances in which Mr Camilleri appeared to permit entry, including the officer’s threats of forced entry and the consequences Mr Camilleri understood would follow if he did not cooperate. The Court accepted that his apparent consent was not freely given in the circumstances.
The evidence also raised questions about the officer’s understanding of his statutory powers. The draft account records that the officer acknowledged he had not first suspended Mr Camilleri’s firearms licence before seizing the firearms.
The Court also considered whether Mr Camilleri’s detention was justified under s 22 of the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW). It was not satisfied that the police had established a lawful basis for detaining him. The Court considered the officer’s observations of Mr Camilleri’s behaviour, the information available to police and the circumstances in which the detention occurred.
These findings demonstrate the importance of identifying a proper legal basis before entering private premises, seizing property or exercising powers that deprive a person of their liberty.
Information provided to hospital staff
The Court also examined the information Senior Constable Richards supplied to hospital staff when seeking Mr Camilleri’s assessment and detention.
The evidence included statements describing Mr Camilleri as uncooperative and erratic, as well as assertions about the risk he posed to himself. The Court considered whether the information accurately reflected the interaction between Mr Camilleri and police, including his reasons for refusing to provide further assistance concerning firearms held at his father’s home.
The accuracy of this information was significant because hospital practitioners relied on it when assessing Mr Camilleri’s mental state and the need for continued detention.
The case illustrates the potential consequences when information supplied by police is materially inaccurate or omits relevant circumstances. Where coercive powers are exercised, the factual basis for the action must be properly supported.
Malicious prosecution
One of the most significant aspects of the decision was the Court’s finding in favour of Mr Camilleri’s malicious prosecution claim.
Malicious prosecution is a distinct tort with demanding legal requirements. It is not enough to establish that a person was charged and the proceedings were unsuccessful, or that other police conduct was unlawful. The plaintiff must establish the applicable elements of the tort, including the absence of reasonable and probable cause and that the proceedings were initiated with malice.
The Court considered the officer’s role in commencing the prosecution concerning the butterfly knives, the circumstances in which the items were discovered, and the officer’s knowledge of the limits of his powers. It also considered the evidence concerning the officer’s conduct and the information provided in support of Mr Camilleri’s detention.
The Court accepted that the prosecution was pursued for an improper purpose connected with the officer’s own interests, rather than simply as a bona fide attempt to enforce the law. The malicious prosecution claim therefore succeeded.
The decision is a reminder that the lawfulness of criminal proceedings must be assessed separately from the lawfulness of the events that precede them. Where the evidence supports the necessary elements, misuse of the prosecution process may give rise to civil liability.
Damages
The Court awarded damages in respect of Mr Camilleri’s successful claims. The draft case notes record awards of $40,000 for trespass and $215,000 for false imprisonment, together with $30,000 for malicious prosecution.
The case notes state that the total award was $303,730 inclusive of interest, with costs. The individual figures listed total $285,000, so the precise breakdown of the total should be confirmed against the judgment before publication.
Camilleri demonstrates the importance of police exercising statutory powers lawfully and on a properly established factual basis. It also highlights the significance of accurate information when police seek involuntary mental health intervention and the potential civil consequences of an improperly motivated prosecution.
For individuals affected by alleged unlawful police conduct, the decision illustrates that different causes of action may arise from the same sequence of events. Each claim, however, requires its own legal elements to be established on the evidence.
More information about this decision can be found here: Camilleri v State of New South Wales – NSW Caselaw
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.