LVMH Watch & Jewellery Australia Pty Limited v Michael Lassanah & Ors

Friend & Co Lawyers (1st and 2nd Respondents) Henry Davis York (3rd Respondent) File Number(s): 2010/339209 Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 9101 Citation: [2010] NSWDC 241 Date of Decision: 2010-09-30 00:00:00 Before: Gibson DCJ File Number(s): 5370/2008

Judgment 1GILES JA: I agree with Bergin CJ in Eq. 2CAMPBELL JA: I agree with Bergin CJ in Eq. 3BERGIN CJ in EQ: This is an appeal in respect of a defamation action that was heard with other causes of action not the subject of appeal by her Honour Judge Gibson sitting without a jury in the District Court of New South Wales. The First and Second Respondents to the appeal (the first and second plaintiffs at trial), Michael Lassanah and Aaron Oddie by his tutor Michelle Pearson, were awarded damages for false imprisonment and defamation arising out of the events of 10 June 2008 when they visited the Tag Heuer shop in King Street, Sydney, New South Wales (the Shop) owned and operated by the Appellant, LVMH Watch & Jewellery Australia Pty Limited. 4The Respondents went into the Shop and looked at some watches. It is accepted that their conduct was perfectly innocent. However members of the staff in the Shop were apparently suspicious of the Respondents and the alarm that notified the police (referred to as "the hold-up alarm button") was activated. The police arrived in numbers and detained and searched the respondents in King Street in the public gaze. During this process the police officers made allegations and statements about the Respondents attempting to steal watches from the Shop. 5The Respondents sued the Appellant and the Third Respondent, the State of New South Wales (to which I will refer as "the Police"), for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and defamation. The Respondents withdrew their claims in defamation against the Appellant by agreement between those parties in March 2009. The Police cross-claimed against the Appellant for indemnity and/or contribution. 6The matter complained of in the defamation action was that the Police published of and concerning the Respondents the following words: The Manager of the Tag Shop said you were intending to steal from the shop. We are stopping you because you guys were in the Tag Shop intending to steal. You were intending to steal. Don't go into that shop. You were intending to steal. 7In its Defence filed on 5 June 2009 the Police claimed that the matter complained of was published on an occasion of qualified privilege at common law and/or pursuant to s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) (the Act). 8In the Reply filed on 24 June 2009 the Respondents claimed that the Police were actuated by express malice, the particulars of which included the following: (a) The police were racially prejudiced against the first plaintiff. (b) Ill will, bias and prejudice on behalf of the police officers by requiring the Plaintiffs to sit in the gutter on the footpath and to interrogate the Plaintiffs while they were outside the shop when the police should have taken them into the shop where there would have been privacy and where the Plaintiffs would not be seen and observed by the many passers by outside on the footpath. (c) Police spoke in an unnecessarily loud voice. (d) Ill will, prejudice and bias towards the Plaintiffs as evidenced by the failure or refusal of the police to make proper notebook entries, reports including COPS reports. (e) Wrongful failure to make proper enquiries of the staff at Tag Heuer before arresting, imprisoning and defaming the Plaintiffs. (f) Making defamatory statements of and concerning the Plaintiffs to passers by and pedestrians who had no interest in the subject matter of the communications. (g) Police biased and prejudiced towards the Second Plaintiff because of his intellectual disablement. (h) Bias, ill will and prejudice by the police because they assumed the Plaintiffs were guilty of stealing from the Tag Heuer shop or attempting to steal. (i) Failure of the police to watch and examine the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage of the Plaintiffs prior to detaining and imprisoning them. 9The proceedings were heard on 15 to 19 February 2010 inclusive when the evidence concluded. The Trial Judge then stood the matter over to 22 February 2010 for directions as to addresses. It appears that there was a further listing on 23 February 2010 and the front sheet of the Judgment refers to a hearing on 26 February 2010. The only transcripts before this Court are for the dates 15 to 19 February 2010. The First Respondent gave evidence and was cross-examined for two days. The Second Respondent's mother gave very short evidence. Each of the police officers gave evidence and was cross-examined. The Appellant did not call any evidence. However the Appellant published an Apology to the Respondents in open Court. Judgment was delivered on 30 September 2010: Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 241 (the Judgment). 10The Trial Judge found that the imputations conveyed by the matter complained of were that each Respondent "is an attempted thief" and "intended to steal" from the Shop. The Trial Judge held that the Police published those imputations of and concerning the Respondents and that the defence of qualified privilege was not made out. The Trial Judge held that the Appellant was liable for the defamatory publication by the Police. The Trial Judge awarded each of the Respondents damages for defamation ($15,000 to the First Respondent and $20,000 to the Second Respondent) and false imprisonment ($15,000 to the First Respondent and $20,000 to the Second Respondent). The Trial Judge entered judgment in the State's favour on its Cross Claim against the Appellant for 100% indemnity and contribution including an indemnity for costs of the proceedings. The Trial 11In his evidence-in-chief Mr Lassanah said that when he and Mr Oddie were approached by the police officers in the street, "the cops" said "you guys were in the Tag Shop" to which he said he responded "yes. Is there a problem, officer?" He claimed that the following conversation then took place [WB 245]: Police Officer: Yes. The employee of the shop said that you guys were trying to, to - attempting to steal. Pulling on drawers and trying to pull on the drawers and the glasses in an attempt to steal the watch. Mr Lassanah: No. That's not true, that's not true. I just went there. I talked to the employees of the store and they serviced me. I left. Police Officer: No. The employees told us that you guys were - attempted to steal a watch - there might be some item missing. Mr Lassanah: No, we didn't steal anything. I just went to see if there was something that I liked, so I can buy. Police Officer: Okay, pull over on the side. 12Later in his evidence-in-chief Mr Lassanah said the police officers said [WB 255]: The manager of the store said that ... guy was in his - in the shop, intending to steal watches. We are stopping you guys because the guy was in the shop, intending to steal. Don't go in the shop. You guys were intending to steal. You were holding the drawer and glasses in an attempt to steal. 13Mr Lassanah said that the police officer went into the Shop to speak with the manager and that when he returned the following conversation took place [WB 257]: Police Officer: You guys were intending to steal again. Don't go into the shop. Don't talk to no-one. You guys just go home. Mr Lassanah: Officer, can you please hear my side of the story? Police Officer: No. Listen mate, if you want - if you want to tell your side of the story I think you should say it in court. Mr Lassanah: Okay, okay. But can I talk to one of the - can I talk to the manager and see why he accused me of trying to steal the watch? Police Officer: No, don't talk to no-one. They don't want you in the shop. Just stay here. 14Mr Lassanah also claimed in his evidence-in-chief that "the cop were (sic) very aggressive" that they were speaking in loud voices and they were "rude": [WB 255; 256; 267]. 15In cross-examination he gave evidence that when the police first arrived Leading Senior Constable Chad Ansted (LSC Ansted) said to him: (1) that the police had been called to the Shop by people inside the Shop: [WB 316]; (2) that a Shop employee had said that he and Mr Oddie were acting suspiciously in the Shop: [WB 317]; (3) that he had been told there had been tapping on the glass and attempts to lift the glass of the display cabinets: [WB 317]; (4) that the employee had said that the employer was concerned that he and Mr Oddie were about to rob or attempt to steal from the Shop: [WB 317]. 16His evidence was that he regarded LSC Ansted's conduct in going into the Shop to try to "check the situation" as being "fair" to him: [WB 317]. He said that when LSC Ansted returned from the Shop he said "I've been inside to find out some more information": [WB 317]. He claimed he also said that the Shop employees had said that he and Mr Oddie were not allowed back into the Shop because "you were acting like thieves" and that the manager of the Shop had said that he and Mr Oddie were acting suspiciously in the Shop: [WB 318]. He gave the following further evidence [WB 320- 321]: Q. Did Mr Ansted say to you that the manager of the Tag shop had said things to him about you and Mr Oddie? A. It was once, and the rest of the time he said, "You guys were acting like thief. Doing this, doing that." He did not use the "manager" term always, just once. Once he used the "manager" term. ... Q. Did he say to you these words - did Mr Ansted say these words to you: "The manager of the Tag shop said you were intending to steal from the shop"? A. Yes, he said one -- Q. Did Mr Ansted say these words to you: "We are stopping you because you guys were in the Tag shop, intending to steal"? A. Yes, yes. ... Q. Did he say to you he'd got that information from the manager? A. No, he didn't. Like I say, he used the "manager " just once, when he said, "The manager says..(not transcribable).. "then the rest of the thing, "You guys were intending to do this. You guys were intending to do that. Don't go in the shop. Go home." 17However he then claimed that he did not recall LSC Ansted at any stage using the phrase that "the employees" in the Shop had told him things about the Respondents: [WB 321]. His attention was then drawn to his answer to Interrogatory 5 in which he had said the police officer had said that "the employees" in the Shop had told him various things: [WB 323]. He reiterated that LSC Ansted used the word "manager" once and he claimed that he did not recall the use of the term "employees": [WB 325]. He then gave the following evidence [WB 325]: Q. Did any police say to you, "They have accused you of being suspicious and acting like thieves"? A. He said, "Oh, you guys" - after he used the term, "manager", as the conversation went on, he said, "Oh, you guys were - were acting like thief, blah blah blah blah". 18Mr Lassanah was cross-examined about Interrogatory 8 that referred to paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim that alleged that the Appellant's servants, employees and agents had published of the Respondents the words, "Those two people were intending to steal from our shop". The Interrogatory asked whether the person who published those words was male or female. The answer given was, "The police officer told me that it was both employees who said those words". Mr Lassanah gave the following evidence [WB 345-346]: Q. It says, "Look at paragraph 4 of the statement of claim filed on 12 November 2008, and say what is the person" - presumably it means who was the person - "who said the words the substance of which were, 'Those two people were intending to steal from our shop', a male or a female?" Do you see that question in that interrogatory? A. Yeah. Q. Do you see the answer you gave, "The police officer told me that it was both employees who said those words." Do you see that answer? A. Yes, yes. ... Q. You see the words that are set out there, "Those two people (thereby referring to the plaintiffs) were intending to steal from our shop." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. In your answer to interrogatories you say that, "The police officer told me that it was both employees who said those words." Do you see that? A. Yes, I see it. Q. Is that the case, that the police officers said to you that both of the employees had said to the police, "Those two people were intending to steal from our shop"? A. Yes. 19Mr Oddie was not called to give evidence. His mother gave very short evidence about his disability: [WB 250-254]. 20LSC Ansted gave evidence that he spoke to the manager from the Shop who told him "certain things". He then got out of the car and stopped the two Respondents. He told them his name and that of Constable Coates and said, "There's been an incident in the Tag Heuer shop. Stop there". His evidence was that he suspected there had been an incident in the Shop not that they had robbed the Shop. He said there was a possibility that they may have done something "adverse" inside the Shop. He could not say that he believed they were intending to rob the Shop, it was something that the manager of the Shop had said: [WB 413]. 21He said he believed he had reasonable grounds to stop the Respondents to find out exactly what they did in the Shop: [WB 414]. He gave the following evidence in cross-examination [WB 414-415]: Q. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you did you believe the manager when among other things he told you that the two men were about to rob or attempt to steal from the shop. A. I believe there was enough, yes, to stop them. Q. What? A. There was enough reasonable grounds there to stop them based on his information. Q. I'll ask you this question. Did you think you had reasonable grounds to stop them? A. Yes, I did. ... Q. You believed from what the manager told you that the two men were about to rob or attempt to steal from the shop. A. No. Q. You didn't believe him. So when he told you that, you didn't believe him. A. Its something that I can't say, whether they were going to rob the store or attempt to steal from the store. It was enough on the information that he provided to stop them, and that's all I did. 22He was told a couple of times (by the manager and by Sergeant Gibson) that the Respondents had been tapping on the glass and trying to lift the glass on top of the display cabinets: [WB 421]. The manager also told him that there had been a previous theft in the store: [WB 421]. 23He denied that the reason he apprehended the Respondents was because one of them was black: [WB 422]. He gave the following evidence [WB 424-425]: HER HONOUR Q. We just want to know what you said when you stopped them. Can you tell us what you said? A. That there'd been an incident in the Tag Heuer shop. The alarm hold-up button had gone off. EVATT Q. Is that all you said? A. That's all I can recall saying, yes. ... Q. You must have spoken to these men to give them some explanation as to why you stopped them? A. I do recall saying to them that the manager said there was a - someone - they were intending to steal from the manager. I never said they were intending to steal. The manager did. Q. But did you say the manager said you were intending to steal? A. Yes. Q. So you could have said "the manager of the Tag shop said - that the manager said you were intending to steal from the shop"? A. Yes. Q. You could have said "we are stopping you because you guys were in the Tag shop and the manager said you intended to steal," something like that? A. Well, they were - as I said, when I got out of the police car they were stopped and they were told to stop there. That's when I've gone back into the store. Q. Didn't quite answer my question. Just listen to me. You said "we are stopping you because you guys were in the Tag shop and the manager said you were intending to steal". A. I don't recall that. I can't say whether that happened or didn't. Q. You do agree that you did say to them "the manager said you were intending to steal". A. Yes, the manager did, yes. Q. You had in mind this was a hold-up situation or a possible hold-up situation. Is that right? A. Possible, yes. ... Q. No, when you spoke to the two gentlemen you thought there was a possible hold-up situation. A. Yes, correct. ... Q. ...The manager told you that they were likely store robbers or possible store robbers. A. He was - he believed that they were intending to steal from - he believed that they were intending to steal from the shop, but I never -- Q. He told you that? A. Yes, he did tell me that. 24He denied speaking in a loud voice when interviewing the Respondents: [WB 426-427, 459-460]. He also denied that he was satisfied that the whole thing was a "false alarm". He said that there was not a hold up but there had been an incident, a suspicious incident: [WB 444]. 25He said that Sergeant Gibson had told him that they were seen on CCTV footage inside the Shop acting suspiciously: [WB 465]. He said that the information that he received from the manager was reasonable grounds to search the Respondents and that there could have been an "implement", a "watch on the person", or "anything": [WB 466]. He gave evidence that what the manager had said in culmination with the hold-up alarm being pressed, acting suspiciously inside the Shop and lifting up cabinets was sufficient information for the Respondents to be searched: [WB 468]. He also gave evidence that Sergeant Gibson had told him that the CCTV showed that they were acting suspiciously, lifting up lids. He was satisfied with the result of the search and nothing was found upon either person: [WB 468]. 26LSC Ansted explained the "delay" between his arrival and the request for the Central Name Index (CNI) check of 8 minutes on the basis that the situation required proper investigation to see whether an offence had taken place and he had to speak to the informant (the manager) to find out exactly what had been alleged to have occurred inside the Shop. He said that this took an amount of time before the CNI check had been conducted and "unfortunately" the Respondents did not have any choice but to remain while that occurred: [WB 494]. 27Constable Gregory Lentfer gave evidence that he had a discussion with LSC Ansted at the scene who informed him that the manager at the Shop had said that there were two males previously in the Shop who had been acting suspiciously. They were tapping or being very hard on metal casings that enclosed watches and were trying to pull panels of the glass apart with their hands. LSC Ansted informed him that the manager thought that the two men were either going to try to rob from him or steal from him. The two men the police were talking to were the males that the manager had identified: [WB 500]. He said that LSC Ansted spoke in a normal voice: [WB 500]. 28Constable Lentfer said he introduced himself to the Respondents and said that they had information from the manager that they had been acting suspiciously, banging on the glass cabinets and trying to pull the panels apart and that the manager felt that they were trying to steal from him and rob him. He informed them this was reason for the search just to see if they had anything that might have been stolen or unlawfully obtained in their possession or any implements that may have been used to commit an offence. He said that both Respondents were "constantly" speaking: [WB 501]. He said that the implements that can be used to break glass can be only "millimetres big", so he took his time to make sure that he searched thoroughly and did not miss anything. He did not find anything and conveyed that to LSC Ansted. The decision to let the Respondents go was probably made by LSC Ansted immediately after the searches: [WB 502]. He did not see the Respondents sitting at any time: [WB 503]. There were people constantly walking by but they would not have been able to hear all of what was said. If they heard anything it would have been only a couple of words or a small part of what was said: [WB 503-504]. 29He said that LSC Ansted said to the Respondents that they were being detained because of what he had been told from the manager of the Shop due to them acting suspiciously within the Shop banging on the glass panels and trying to pull the panels apart: [WB 512-513]. He conducted the search and LSC Ansted did the CNI checks: [WB 514-515]. He denied shouting at the Respondents: [WB 519]. When he was searching them the Respondents were denying they had done anything wrong in the Shop: [WB 521]. The CNI checks were done prior to the search: [WB 510]. He said that he forgot to hand Mr Lassanah's licence back to him and that this was "an accident": [WB 505-506]. He denied that the Respondents were directed to sit down on the footpath and said this is not what "usually" happens in his experience. He said that it depends on the behaviour at the time: [WB 516]. 30Constable Lorraine Axford (a Probationary Constable at the time of the incident) said that she could not recall anything that LSC Ansted or Constable Lentfer said to the Respondents: [WB 533]. She made no entry in her notebook: [WB 534]. She did not have any recollection of the Respondents sitting down: [WB 535]. She had no recollection of one of the police officers directing the Respondents to sit down on the footpath and said that the Respondents were speaking in a loud voice: [WB 536]. She denied that the police were speaking in loud voices: [WB 537]. She gave evidence that either LSC Ansted or Sergeant Gibson said that the staff at the Shop had believed that they were about to be robbed or something similar, and they had pressed the hold-up alarm: [WB 538]. 31Constable Nathan Coates (a Probationary Constable at the time of the incident) gave evidence that LSC Ansted told the Respondents why they were being stopped. He recalled the explanation was that LSC Ansted had been told that they were possibly attempting to steal something out of the Shop. He could not recall what the Respondents said but remembered that they were "argumentative". He said that LSC Ansted's voice was "not out of the ordinary, not excessive": [WB 544]. He has a note in his notebook that Constable Lentfer told the Respondents his rank and his station and why he was going to be subjecting them to a search: [WB 545]. 32Constable Coates did not hear either of the Respondents say to any police officer that they would see them in Court: [WB 546]. He said nothing was said about handcuffs and neither of the Respondents was thrown to the ground: [WB 547]. He also said that neither of the Respondents sat on the footpath next to the gutter with their feet in the gutter: [WB 547]. He did have a memory of Mr Oddie sitting down for less than half the time of the whole event up against the wall and the glass door: [WB 547]. Constable Coates was cross-examined as follows [WB 549-550]: Q. You or Constable Ansted or some other police said to them, "Well, the manager of TAG Heuer said you were intending to steal from the shop". A. Words to that effect, yes. Q. "We're stopping you because it was said that you were in the TAG shop intending to steal", or something like that. A. Yes, they were explained why they were stopped. ... Q. Mr Oddie was sitting down. A. For a part of it. Q. That's because he was told to sit down. A. Yes. Its an officer safety technique that we use. Q. Mr Lassanah was also told to sit down. A. I can't remember. Q. Well, he was sitting down. You can remember that. A. I remember Mr Oddie sitting down. Q. But you also remember Mr Lassanah sitting down. A. No, I didn't say that. ... Q. Do you deny he was sitting down? A. No. I just don't remember either way. 33He said that Constable Lentfer told the Respondents that the manager and staff of the Shop had thought that they were intending to steal or rob the Shop and that's why they were being searched to see if they had anything stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained on them. He said it was unclear whether they had stolen anything or not: [WB 551]. 34He said that they had to further investigate by looking at footage, talking to staff, any other witnesses, and that's why the Respondents' details were obtained. If further information came to light later they could be contacted or further action could be pending on them: [WB 553]. He gave evidence that whenever police deal with somebody on the street there is "officer safety" and that they have to look out for each other and themselves because they do not know who they are dealing with each time: [WB 554]. He gave the following evidence in cross-examination [WB 554]: Q. That's why they're often directed to sit down, is it? A. Correct. Q. And they were both directed to sit down on this occasion? A. I don't remember. Q. Well, at least one of them was. A. I remember one was sitting down. 35Sergeant Mark Gibson gave evidence that he went into the Shop and spoke to a female employee and a male employee, the manager: [WB 573]. They spoke about the manger activating the hold-up alarm due to the activity of two males inside the Shop and the manager showed him "some" CCTV footage: [WB 574]. He had a conversation with LSC Ansted about the footage and the males: [WB 574]. He said that the situation was calm and the Respondents were treated professionally and released in due course: [WB 575]. 36He was shown the CCTV footage at the rear section inside the Shop. He did not recall how long he spent watching it or whether he saw footage of different camera angles: [WB 576-577]. He formed a view about the behaviour of the Respondents when he saw the footage. He said that given the CCTV footage and "from what I was told by the store manager, I formed the opinion that the two males were acting suspiciously in the store" and that it warranted further investigation: [WB 578]. The manager told him he activated the alarm because the Respondents were manipulating the cabinets containing the watches. What he saw on the CCTV led him to the belief that the Respondents were acting suspiciously and he agreed with the manager: [WB 578, 580]. However he could not recall the Respondents' exact actions: [WB 580]. 37He only watched the CCTV footage for a "short period of time" - less than five minutes. The manager showed it to him on a screen: [WB 579]. He gave the following evidence [WB 582-583]: Q. You don't know whether it showed them looking at cabinets or not looking at cabinets? A. I can recall - I can recall viewing footage on the TV, what it showed me I don't remember, but I recall what it depicted was the same as what the manager described to me before that. Q. What did the manager say? A. That there was two males in the store acting suspiciously, trying to manipulate the cabinets to the watches. Q. What did the manager say? A. That there was two males in the store acting suspiciously, trying to manipulate the cabinets to the watches. Q. Acting suspiciously? A. Yes. Q. Then what did you say? Trying to steal a watch? A. Trying to manipulate and open cabinets to the watches. Q. Did he show you which cabinet they tried to manipulate? A. I don't remember. Q. Did he say that both men tried to manipulate the cabinet? A. I don't remember. The Judgment 38After referring to the Respondents' individual backgrounds the Trial Judge found that neither had the appearance of "a dangerous person" (at [22]-[40]). Her Honour then set out the circumstances of the Respondents' attendance at the Shop and their subsequent detention and questioning (at [41]-[60]). In this section of the Judgment the Trial Judge referred to Mr Lassanah's evidence of what was said when the police detained the Respondents including the following at paragraph [47]: After I seen the cops and ... (not transcribable) ... you guys were in the Tag Shop?" I said, "Yes. Is there a problem officer?" He said, "Yes. The employee of the shop said that you guys were trying to, to - attempting to steal. Pulling on drawers and trying to pull on the drawers and the glasses in an attempt to steal the watch." I said, "No. That's not true, that's not true. I just went there. I talked to the employees of the store and they serviced me. I left." He said, "No. The employees told us that you guys were - attempted to steal a watch." And then he said there might be some item missing. I said, "No, we didn't steal anything. I just went to see if there was something that I liked, so I can buy." And he said, "Okay, pull over on the side," and then he search us. And then after they had us sat in the gutter and stuff and while they talked to the employees in the shop. 39The Trial Judge also referred to Mr Lassanah's claims that the police were speaking in "loud voices" and that they said "you guys were attempting to steal this --" and also said that they were not allowed back in the store because "we are thief and we are attempting to steal. I mean, we were acting like thieves" (at [47]). 40The Trial Judge then described the evidence given by Mr Lassanah at transcript 52 (at [48]) as: "...Police said - the Manager of the store said that [not transcribable] guy was in this - in the shop, intending to steal watches, and he said "We are stopping you guys because the guy was in the shop, intending to steal", "Don't go in the shop. You guys are intending to steal". And they also said we were holding on the drawer and glasses in an attempt to steal. 41The Trial Judge observed that a significant feature of the investigation was the total lack of any written record apart from the names and addresses that the police officers took down. The Trial Judge also referred to Mr Lassanah's claim that one of the officers said "You guys were intending to steal again. Don't go in the shop. Don't talk to no-one. You guys just go home." (at [57]). There is also reference to Mr Lassanah's request of the "officer" (unidentified) to hear his side of the story and the response that he could tell his story "in Court". The Trial Judge also referred to Mr Lassanah's evidence in which he claimed that he asked whether he could talk to the manager of the Shop and see why he had been accused of trying to steal the watch, to which the officer is said to have informed him that he was not to talk to anyone as they did not want him in the Shop (at [59]). 42The Trial Judge then dealt with the CCTV footage from the Shop as follows: The CCTV Footage 61. There were considerable problems ascertaining the precise timeline of the CCTV footage because the time on the CCTV footage was incorrect. This has now been corrected by an updated index to the CCTV footage, which is Exhibit 4. 62. The plaintiffs can be seen entering the store at 13.58 hrs (the reading is 13:58:30). The first plaintiff engages in discussion with the male store employee and the second plaintiff remains close to him, although he moves, on several occasions backwards and forwards. On one occasion, according to the camera outside the store and the second defendant's written submissions, the second plaintiff can be seen to rest his hands on one of the glass cabinets. He then exits the store, at 14:03:34, and can be seen standing around outside the shop, near the front door and front window. It is at this stage that the male shop attendant opens a locked cabinet to show the first plaintiff watches (14:04:39). 63. At 14:05.54, a female shop assistant is seen going to the shop counter and appears to be reaching for something below the counter. The first plaintiff continues to have a discussion with the male shop assistant, and at 14:07:05 leaves the shop and, together with the second plaintiff, turns right and walks east towards Macquarie Street. 64. No evidence was called by the second defendant. Neither of the shop assistants who were seen on the CCTV tape gave evidence although it was made clear to the Court by Mr Rasmussen, counsel for the second defendant, that they were available; he made a decision not to call these witnesses (the hearing was in fact briefly adjourned to suit the convenience of one of these witnesses, who was then not called). 65. The precise time at which the hold-up button was pressed is unclear. Although it is put to me in submissions (paragraph 26, second defendant's submissions) that this occurs at 14:04:54-14:04:57, two minutes before Mr Lassanah leaves, there is no other evidence of this; the female shop assistant can be seen bending down under the register to do something at 14:12:29 and 14:13:09, both of which occur after the plaintiffs have left the store. 66. From 14:7:38 ( sic ), the male store employee is seen at the store entrance, looking down King Street in the same direction as the plaintiffs had gone, for about the next 2 minutes. And at 14:10:09, he walks down King Street. There is then a gap of about three minutes. The police arrive at 14:13:21. 67. The only question put to Mr Lassanah about his conduct in the shop by counsel for the second defendant was whether, in the course of talking to the sales assistant, Mr Lassanah had asked what the best price might be on a particular watch that was being shown to him, with the intention of bargaining with him in some way (T-146). It was not put to Mr Lassanah that his conduct whilst in the shop was anything other than entirely proper. 68. Mr Lassanah was asked about the conduct of Mr Oddie, and whether he showed signs of being very restless, to which he replied "He did show signs, yes" and that this included pacing back and forth (T-146). 69. While the first defendant has made an attack on Mr Lassanah's credit, in asserting that the evidence of the police should be preferred as to the words actually spoken and the circumstances of arrest, no suggestion has been put that the ( sic ) Mr Lassanah's description of his own conduct in the shop, or of the conduct of Mr Oddie, was dishonest or inaccurate. Nor was anything put to Mr Lassanah during cross-examination that the conduct of either of them warranted the pressing of the hold-up button. This brings me to consideration of the issue of the police evidence generally and of Mr Lassanah's credit. 43The Trial Judge then dealt with the evidence of the various police officers on particular topics including whether the Respondents were made to sit down; Mr Oddie's disability; the extent of the conversation with the Respondents; the description of the scene in King Street; and the confiscation of Mr Lassanah's driver's licence. Her Honour rejected the police officers' evidence: that the Respondents were not made to sit down; that Mr Oddie had articulated an invasion of his rights; that their voices were not loud; and that King Street was not busy at the time. Her Honour also found that their failure to return Mr Lassanah's driver's licence was not to their credit (at [70]). 44Her Honour then dealt with the "credibility" of the police officers and was satisfied that doubt was cast upon the accuracy and reliability of the police evidence particularly where it was not corroborated by contemporaneous police records of any substance (at [74]). Her Honour then dealt with the question of whether the police looked at the CCTV footage (at [78]-[82]) and concluded that she could only speculate as to what if anything Sergeant Gibson saw of it. Her Honour referred to the lack of corroborative police documentation (at [83]-[91]) and rejected the Appellant's submission that there was sufficient material to make a finding that the perception of the Respondents' behaviour as acting suspiciously and trying to manipulate the cabinets warranted the pressing of the hold-up alarm button. Her Honour concluded that there was nothing in the CCTV footage to explain the conduct of the Appellant's servants or agents. Her Honour found there was no evidence of the Respondents attempting to lift the lids of cabinets and that the reasons for these allegations being made were unexplained as were the reasons for persisting with the claims after the Police arrived (at [91]). 45In the next section of the judgment (at [92]-[95]) the Trial Judge dealt with the submissions of the Police as to why Mr Lassanah's evidence as to what was said should be rejected and concluded that the matters raised by the Appellant and the Police were not a basis upon which his evidence should be rejected (at [94]). 46Her Honour referred to the evidence of the police officers as to what the Appellant's employees said to them with further reference to the content of the CCTV footage (at [97]) and said: 101. I have set out below in more detail why I do not accept the submissions of the second defendant [the Appellant] that it was while Mr Lassanah and/or Mr Lassanah and Mr Oddie were in the shop that the alarm button was pressed. 47Her Honour said that she was not prepared to accept that the Respondents were acting suspiciously in circumstances where none of the store employees had been called to give evidence and the CCTV footage showed nothing improper in the Respondents' conduct (at [105]). 48The Trial Judge continued: When was the alarm button activated? 106. Mr Lassanah left the shop at 7 minutes past 2 in the afternoon. The police arrive at 2.13 pm. The police came to the scene very quickly as it was an urgent call over the police radio (T-167), which meant that lights and sirens were activated as an emergency job. 107. The discrepancy in time between the police receipt of the call at 14:14:59 has been explained as being due to the nature of CCTV footage and to inaccurate time measurements. According to the police, the call was received at 14:14:59 and they left the Tag Heuer premises at 15:11:19, meaning that the whole incident took half an hour of police time, the police were on the scene between 14:51:19 (T-171) and 15:11:19. Three cars came to the scene of the reported robbery. 108. Given the speed with which the police respond to such urgent calls, and given that there were cars in the immediate vicinity, as the emergency operator calls confirm, the time between the operator call at 14:44:20 and the response of the police (14:45:20) and the giving of the address (14:45:40) it can be seen that the police arrived at approximately 14:50 pm. By 14:51 the police were able to radio back to the operator: "Just information there's been an attempt robbery on the store we are just going to try and work out what actually happened here at the moment um and we will be speaking to two POIs who have been stopped by security so if you can let that other car keep coming and um - we will go from there." 109. At 14:51:20 the police confirmed they were speaking with the POIs. The police were therefore at the premises a matter of 6 minutes after the call. 110. The plaintiffs had left the shop according to the CCTV footage, at 14:07:05, walked up to Rolex, where the first plaintiff looked at some more watches, following which he walked back down King Street towards where the Department of Community Service hire car was parked. 111. At the time that the police car came past, the Plaintiffs were still walking back from Rolex; they are seen walking past the shop according to the CCTV time, at 14:15:30, followed by two uniformed police, and they are apprehended just past the Tag Heuer shop. 112. The speed of the police response to the urgent call means that the time between the button being pressed and the police response is too short to be consistent with the second defendant's assertion that the button was pressed at 14:04:54, the time at which a female shop attendant is seen reaching for something below the counter. 113. For these reasons, I accept the submissions of the plaintiffs that the alarm button was most probably activated after the plaintiffs had left the Tag Heuer shop, in circumstances where there is no explanation or evidence as to why this occurred. 49The Trial Judge then dealt with the question of why the Appellant's staff had pressed the hold-up button. Her Honour referred to the Appellant's failure to call the Shop assistants to explain when and in what circumstances the hold-up button was pressed or to provide the detail of the recent robbery of the Shop. In that respect her Honour was satisfied that this failure constituted grounds upon which an inference adverse to the Appellant should be drawn consistently with the principles in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. The Trial Judge then set out some principles relating to whether Mr Oddie's intellectual disability prevented him from making a claim for false imprisonment and defamation (at [119]-[121]) and dealt with the liability of the Appellant and the Police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment (at [122]). Her Honour was satisfied that the Respondents were not in fact arrested (at [123]) and that an arrest was not a necessary pre-requisite for an imprisonment to exist (at [124]). 50Her Honour was satisfied that the Respondents were stopped and searched because of the very serious allegations made by the Appellant's servants and agents, "mainly that they [the Respondents] had been behaving suspiciously in the circumstances where these persons believed that an armed robbery was being attempted" (at [143]). Her Honour concluded that the Police were called to the scene "to investigate a potential robbery of a store and were exercising their rights to stop and search under Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)" (at [145]). 51Her Honour also concluded that by pressing the emergency hold-up button, identifying the Respondents as the reason for doing this and persisting in those allegations, the Appellant's servants and agents did not merely provide information but were "the sole motivating force putting the prosecution in train" (at [149]). The Trial Judge also said that the Police realised "almost immediately that they had to work out what had really happened" and that they told the police radio operator of this fact. Her Honour then observed that the Appellant's servants and agents "appear to have persisted in claiming" that the Respondents had been "tapping on and trying to open the glass cabinets in their store" (at [150]). 52Her Honour concluded: 155. Accordingly I am satisfied that the second defendant's servants or agents promoted and caused the plaintiffs being stopped, detained and searched by the police, and that their continued insistence that the plaintiffs had misconducted themselves in the store after the police arrived unnecessarily prolonged the plaintiffs' detention, in that the police were obliged to investigate the store employees' mischievous claims. I say "mischievous" because I am satisfied from the evidence that the button was pressed well after the plaintiffs left the store, in circumstances where there was no threat, and where it is clear from the CCTV that nothing untoward had occurred. 53The Trial Judge then dealt with what was described as the "Relevant Facts" (at [156]-[163]). In this section of the Judgment her Honour refers to a number of matters including that when the police officers arrived at the Shop "they did not necessarily suspect a hold-up". Her Honour said that when LCS Ansted went to the Shop "it was clear to him that there was no armed robbery and there had been no watches stolen (at [160]). Her Honour then said: 161. Leading Senior Constable Ansted considered (T-211) that he had "reasonable grounds to stop those persons to find out exactly what they did at the store, not that they robbed the store, attempted to rob the store". He did not believe, either of his own account or from what the Manger told him, that the two men were about to rob or attempt to steal from the shop. 162. However, this does not entitle a police officer to stop and search unless there were reasonable grounds. There was no evidence the plaintiffs had any item in their possession which was stolen as there was nothing taken, and no evidence that the plaintiffs had used any items in the store in any attempt to open any of the cabinets. 54Her Honour later concluded: 169. The deliberate giving of wrong information should be treated differently, whether or not there is evidence of it or not from the store employees in question. On any analysis, there is no conduct of the plaintiffs on the CCTV tape which could possibly lead to any suspicion that they were tapping on the glass or attempting to open the glass cabinet, and in particular no evidence that they were using any implement to do so. As was the case in Webster v Coles Myer Ltd; Thompson v Coles Myer Ltd, Mr Lassanah was not cross-examined about his conduct in the store. 170. In conclusion, I am satisfied that the second defendant or its servants or agents made false accusations about the plaintiffs to the police as follows: (a) The hold-up button was wrongly activated, after the plaintiffs had left the store premises and on any reasonable analysis, there was no question of there being any reason for concern. (b) The manager of the store told Leading Senior Constable Ansted that the plaintiffs were acting suspiciously in the shop, tapping on the glass, trying to lift the glass of the display cabinets and attempting to rob or steal from these cabinets when it is clear from the CCTV that no such conduct had occurred (T 217-218). (c) These statements were repeated to Sergeant Gibson (T 262) and in particular Leading Senior Constable Ansted said that Sergeant Gibson was told that the Plaintiffs had been "lifting up the lids" (T 265). The CCTV footage confirms that no such conduct occurred and Mr Lassanah was not cross-examined. (d) Mr Lassanah was not cross-examined on his evidence that he was treated well in the shop and was not cross-examined on his evidence that as he left the manager said "Goodbye nice seeing you" (T 40). (e) I accept the submissions of the plaintiffs that if the manager or other employees of the second defendant had really suspected the plaintiffs, they should have kept the door closed and rung for the police either when the plaintiffs were in the premises or shortly thereafter, and they should not be encouraging other persons to enter the store. No explanation has been provided as to why the alarm the ( sic ) activated after the plaintiffs left the shop. The submissions of the second defendant that the CCTV footage of one of the staff members bending over means that the alarm must have been activated in the shop while the plaintiffs were in the shop is incorrect as the times for the calling of the police demonstrate. The speed with which the police arrived after the alarm and the times on the radio call records for the police confirm that the alarm was activated after the plaintiffs had left the shop. It was simply coincidence that the plaintiffs were walking down the street from the Rolex shop when the police arrived. (f) Nor do I accept the assertions that the second defendant's premises had been robbed the week beforehand. No material was put before the court to demonstrate that this had in fact occurred. 55Her Honour concluded that the Appellant had caused and procured the wrongful detention of the Respondents and that the Appellant and the Police were liable for the false imprisonment of the Respondents. Her Honour then turned to the question of the claim in defamation in respect of which the judgment includes the following: What was said 179. I have earlier set out the initial description given by Mr Lassanah as to what was said by the police officers (T 42.3). After Mr [ sic ] Oddie was interposed, I asked Mr Lassanah to repeat again what he had said, and I had difficulty understanding, given his strong accent, a number of things he had said, including in particular whether the police said to him "intending to steal" or "attempting to steal" (T 52). 180. At T 52, Mr Lassanah gave the following description of what was said: "Police said - the manager of the store said that..(not transcribable)..guy was in his - in the shop, intending to steal watches, and he said, "We are stopping you guys because the guy was in the shop, intending to steal." "Don't go in the shop. You guys were intending to steal." And they also said that we were holding on the drawer and glasses in an attempt to steal." 181. In cross-examination, it was apparent that this discussion was not a single discussion followed by silence for the rest of the time that the plaintiffs were being detained by the police officers. Mr Lassanah agreed with Mr Neil QC that the police initially said they were coming because of something that was said to them by the store manager, or somebody in the store, and that he denied doing anything wrong, handed over his drivers' licence, was searched and that some time after this he and Mr Oddie were released (T 70). A more complete version appears at T 116-118: "Q. Did Mr Ansted say to you that the manager had said that you and Mr Oddie had been trying to lift the glass on the top of the display cabinet? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr Anstead ( sic ) say to you that the manager had said to you - said to him that it was his view - the manager's view - that you and Mr Oddie were about to steal something, or that the shop was about to be held up? A. No, no. Q. Did Mr Anstead ( sic ) say to you, "The manager has alleged that some of the cabinets were attempted to be opened in the store"? A. No. No. Q. Let me ask you this. I'm coming to the matter complained of, your Honour. Did Mr Anstead ( sic ) say to you, "The manager of the Tag shop said you're intending to steal from the shop"? A. He did not use the term, "manager", all the time we're there. "Oh, you guys were intending to steal - acting like thief." Q. Do you say that Mr Anstead ( sic ) did not say to you anything using the nomination of the position as manager? HER HONOUR: No, he said those phrases, Mr Neil WITNESS: He didn't say "the manager", yeah. NEIL Q. Did Mr Anstead ( sic ) say to you that the manager of the Tag shop had said things to him about you and Mr Oddie? A. It was once, and the rest of the time he said, "You guys were acting like thief. Doing this, doing that." He did not use the "manager" term always, just once. Once he used the "manager" term. Q. I think you just said he did not say to you - is this what you're saying? HER HONOUR: No, Mr Neil. He said he used the phrase "manager" once. The rest of the time, this witness said, he said, "You guys are acting like thieves." That's what he said, Mr Neil. NEIL Q. Did he say to you these words - did Mr Anstead ( sic ) say these words to you: "The manager of the Tag shop said you were intending to steal from the shop"? A. Yes, he said one-- Q. Did Mr Anstead ( sic ) say these words to you: "We are stopping you because you guys were in the Tag shop, intending to steal"? A. Yes, yes. Q. Did he say following that, anything further about, "You were intending to steal"? A. Yes. He said, "Don't go into the shop. You guys were intending to steal. Don't go in the shop." Q. Did he say to you the manager had told him that you and Mr Oddie had been intending to steal? A. He just said, "You guys were intending to steal," as..(not transcribable).."You guys were intending to steal, so don't go in the shop. You guys were intending to steal." Q. Did he say to you he'd got that information from the manger? A. No, he didn't. Like I say, he used the "manager" just once, when he said, "The manager says..(not transcribable).." then the rest of the thing, "You guys were intending to do this. You guys were intending to do that. Don't go in the shop. Go home."" 182. It is clear from the evidence of all of the witnesses that Mr Lassanah was told to go home (without his drivers licence which was retained by the police) only after the enquiries had finished. In other words, the accusations about being a thief and intending to steal from the Tag Heuer boutique shop were not made once, but several times. 183. The first point that the first defendant made in written submissions is that the "very first version in evidence" (first defendant's written submissions paragraph 3) should be accepted. The first plaintiff has used the word "employee" three times, twice being what he said the police told him the employee said to him and once about himself talking to the employee. Similarly, the passage at T 52.20 referred to the first line to the manager again. However, the second version, which was given after Mr Oddie left the court (it having been apparent that he was very frightened), does not refer to the manager as being the source of the allegations. In addition, when the first plaintiff was taken through evidence with some care by Mr Neil QC in cross-examination, he gave the third and more comprehensive version set out above. The first defendant does not refer to the version of the matter complained of given in cross-examination in its written submissions. 184. The first defendant's submission is that the matter complained of, in the version given by Mr Lassanah, is so different in substance from what was said that the publication pleaded was not made, and the imputations cannot therefore be conveyed. 185. I do not accept this submission. It is clear from the second and third account given by Mr Lassanah of his conversation with the police officers that the police officers were stating that he was a thief and that he intended to steal from the Tag Heuer shop. This is particularly the case in relation to the conversation in the course of which he was told to "go home". Any initial reference to the manager or some other unidentified store employee as being the source of the allegations was not, I find, made other than in the opening words of the police officers when they first arrived on the scene. 186. However, even if it were the case that the police were merely repeating what the store manager said and were using either the phrase "employees" or "manager", the substance of the allegation was that the plaintiffs were thieves and were attempting to steal from the Tag Heuer shop. The fact that words spoken by the police officers differ in some respects to the words pleaded is not sufficient to deny publication, for the reasons explained in Lamb v West, supra and Smith v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, supra. 187. It is asserted that the first plaintiff's version of events using the word "manager" is consistent with the answer to interrogatory 8. The fact that the police officers said both employees had accused him of intending to steal from the Tag Heuer shop does not mean that the police officers did not directly accuse the plaintiffs of stealing. The answer to interrogatory 8 needs to be seen in its context. Nor is the alleged error of counsel for the plaintiffs in cross-examining Leading Senior Constable Ansted at T 221-222 (written submissions paragraph 10-11) of any significance. The actual words of Mr Lassanah should be preferred to a summary of them given by his counsel in cross-examination of Leading Senior Constable Ansted. 188. Fundamentally, the question of whether or not the police were merely repeating words that the manager had said concerning the manager's suspicions or directly accusing the plaintiffs is a distinction without a difference. Even in the version given by the police officers, it is clear that the police officers conducted the detention and search of the plaintiffs the way they did. For example, Constable Lentfer gave as his reason for wanting to search the plaintiffs as being "just to see if youse [sic] have anything that might have been stolen, unlawfully obtained in your possession, or any implements that may be used to commit an offence". 189. I have rejected the attack on Mr Lassanah's credibility made in paragraph 19 of the first defendant's written submissions. The police made no records of any kind during their visit to the premises, including a notation of what allegations, if any, were in fact made by store employees, and the store employees who spoke to the police were not called by either defendant to give evidence. 56Her Honour then dealt with publication, identification and whether the imputations were conveyed. Having determined those issues in the Respondents' favour her Honour considered the defence of qualified privilege as follows: Qualified privilege 205. Communications are protected at common law where a person has an interest or duty of a legal, social or moral nature to make a statement on an occasion and the recipient has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it: Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366; (2004) 204 ALR 193; (2004) 78 ALJR 346; (2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-727; [2004] HCA 5 at [9]-[10] per Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ. 206. What has been called the "guiding principle" of reciprocal duty and interest is a broad and general one, based on public utility: Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd v Bedford (1934) 50 CLR 632 at 657 per Evatt J. 207. It is because of the width of the principles concerning the principles of reciprocal duty and interest, which are broad and general, that there must be a close scrutiny of the circumstances of the case, of the situation of the parties, of the relations of all concerned and of the events leading up to and surrounding the publication: Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd, supra, at [10]. 208. I have set out the circumstances of the detention of each of the plaintiffs in the section concerning the false imprisonment. I shall not repeat them again. 209. The question of duty and interest was considered at length by Ipp and Campbell JJA in Bennette v Cohen [2009] NSWCA 60. At Ipp JA warned that the close scrutiny required meant that the following six factors needed to be given great weight when carrying out the necessary scrutiny: (i) As a matter of public policy, it must be in the general interest of the whole community that the type of material in question be published, notwithstanding that it is defamatory of a third party; (ii) The occasion must not be used for some purpose or motive foreign to the interest that protects the making of the statement. Further, there must be a significant connection between the defamatory material and the privileged occasion; (iii) The interest that gives rise to qualified privilege must be real and direct; (iv) Ordinarily, a volunteered statement is privileged only where there is a pressing need to protect the interests of the defendant or a third party, or where the defendant has a duty to make the statement; (v) If a publication is made to a large audience, a claim of qualified privilege at common law will fail unless the members of the audience all have an interest in knowing the truth, and; (vi) The interest should not give officious and interfering persons a wide licence to defame. Relevance to the occasion of qualified privilege 210. The parties agree ( Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd at [54]) that the court examines all the circumstances of a case, including the nature of the defamatory communication, the status or position of the publisher, the number of recipients and the nature of any interest they had in receiving it, and the time, place and manner of and reason for the publication. After considering these matters, the court makes a judgment as to whether the publisher had a duty or interest that justify the making of the publication and whether the recipients, or some of them, had a duty to receive or an interest in receiving it. 211. The first defendant submits (written submissions, paragraph 91), that the touchstone is public policy, which determines issues of duty and interest. The concept of public policy or common convenience and welfare of society means "that the interests of society in general require that a communication made under the particular circumstances to the particular person should be protected": Howe & McColough v Lees (1910) 11 CLR 361 at 368-369. 212. The first defendant also draws my attention to the statement of the High Court in Mann v O'Neill (1997) 191 CLR 204; (1997) 145 ALR 682; (1997) 71 ALJR 903; [1997] 12 Leg Rep 21; (1997) Aust Torts Reports 81-436; [1997] HCA 28 and to statements to the effect that authorities and organisations charged with the investigation and prosecution of crime such as the police usually enjoy the protection of common law qualified privilege. 213. When considering whether or not a defence of qualified privilege at common law actually attaches, I must consider the whole of the publication. This was not a publication where the police officers told the plaintiffs that they were investigating allegations, and having done so, told the plaintiffs what they were, invited a response, or otherwise processed the allegations which were made by the store employees. Mr Lassanah's evidence was that for the whole of the time that the police were there, right up until the time that he was told to "go home", he and Mr Oddie were told the words that are set out in his evidence in chief and cross-examination in more detail above. 214. The parties did not address me as to how I should deal with a slander where the evidence of the plaintiffs was that words were spoken not once but several times. Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence of Mr Lassanah that at all relevant times, the police made the same statements and, towards the end of the interview, if not at the beginning, were adopting what was said by the store manager. It ( sic ) circumstances in which Mr Lassanah was told to "go home" without his driver's licence being returned, was not conduct which was consistent with having satisfactorily concluded an investigation; the ordinary reasonable bystander hearing these words and seeing the context in which they were spoken (the context being relevant to the defence, even where that context includes conduct that is not part of the matter complained of) would be left with no doubt that the police had investigated the matter and had formed certain views. 215. The bases upon which the plaintiffs had attacked the defence of qualified privilege at common law are two-fold. Firstly, it is asserted that there was no reciprocity, in that members of the public had no interest in receiving the false accusations of criminality in circumstances where the police used a loud voice (written submissions, 16 September 2010). Secondly, it is submitted that as the police had no intention to convey the imputations, the defence must fail. 216. In Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd [2009] NSWCA 9, McClellan CJ at CL stated at [80]: "80 However, the defence will be made good if it can be shown that the defamatory matter, which gave rise to the imputation, was published on an occasion of qualified privilege and the matter was relevant to the privileged occasion. I do not understand Brennan CJ and McHugh J in Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Limited [1998] HCA 37; (1997-1998) 193 CLR 519, (particular at [8]) to say anything to the contrary. Although the imputation must be defended, the occasion which may attract the privilege is when the matter which gives rise to the imputation is published." 217. The duty of the bank to communicate ( Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd at [86]) was a duty to communicate the statement "Refer to Drawer". However, McClellan CJ at CL explained the difference between a statement "Refer to Drawer" and a statement "drawer is a thief" at [75] as follows: "75 The issue can be readily understood by a variant of the present case. If a bank returned a cheque to the payee having correctly determined that there were insufficient funds with two endorsements, one being "Refer to Drawer" and the other, the "drawer is a thief", the imputations arising from the publication of the first statement, made necessary by the bank's decision to refuse payment, will be an occasion of qualified privilege. The publication of the second will not, there being no interest or duty on the part of the bank to publish that the drawer is a thief, with whatever defamatory imputation may be found to arise from the publication of that statement. An occasion on which matter which gives rise to defamatory imputations is published may not be used for some purpose or motive foreign to the duty or interest that protects the making of the statement: Roberts v Bass (at [62])." 218. While it was relevant to the privileged occasion for the police to repeat, at the commencement of the interview, at least some of the allegations made by the store manager, when it became apparent that there was no substance in the complaint and that Mr Lassanah was angry and upset and wanting to speak to the store manager, as well as considering legal avenues, it was not appropriate for the police officers to repeat the matter complained of and to state that the plaintiffs had in fact been intending to do what they were accused of doing, or to order them not to return to the shop, or to tell them to "go home". 219. The occasion of qualified privilege was lost once the police went from repeating the allegations of the store manager to making allegations, particularly in circumstances where it was, by that time, clear that the store manager's allegations were at best misconceived or at worst mischievous or false. 220. Accordingly, the publication was made on an occasion which is not protected by a defence of qualified privilege at common law. 221. I should briefly note some discussions of reciprocity where allegations of criminality are made. Reciprocity where allegations of criminality are made 222. Gatley on Libel and Slander (11 th ed, 2008) notes at [17.11]: "Charges of crime...will only be privileged if made with the honest desire of promoting investigation into the alleged crime, or prosecuting the alleged offender or, it is submitted, recovering property or proper compensation." 223. In Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd, supra, McClellan CJ at CL referred at [39] to Bashford noting that two questions arise, namely, whether the occasion of publication was one where the necessary reciprocality existed and whether the matter defaming the plaintiff was sufficiently relevant to the privileged occasion to attract the defence. While a communication made to ensure the detection of crime may be protected ( Aktas at [43]) it is not the case that all publications to the police are made on an occasion of qualified privilege: Coles Myer Ltd v Webster; Coles Myer Ltd v Thompson [2009] NSWCA 299; Webster v Coles Myer Ltd; Thompson v Coles Myer Ltd [2009] NSWDC 4; (2009) 9 DCLR (NSW) 123 at 199. 224. The submissions of the plaintiffs that there is no reciprocity of interest between members of the public and the police is misconceived and I reject it. The police are not obliged to lower their voices while apprehending persons in case the allegations of criminality are unfounded in the course of attending to an urgent call for assistance of the kind that has occurred here. 225. I have taken into account, when considering the issue of qualified privilege at common law, these issues of reciprocity. As to intention to convey, I agree with the submission of the first defendant that if a defendant does not intend to convey an imputation the defence is still available in some circumstances: see Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (No 2) (1991) 23 NSWLR 374 at 387-388. What may be more relevant in the present circumstances is whether or not the police officers had belief in the truth of what was said. The persisting with allegations throughout the interview, in circumstances where these allegations are put as coming from the police as well, is what causes the occasion of qualified privilege to be lost. 57The Trial Judge then dealt with the statutory defence of qualified privilege under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The statutory defence of qualified privilege is available if the defendant proves that: (a) the recipient has an interest or apparent interest in having information on some subject; and (b) the matter is published to the recipient in the course of giving to the recipient information on that subject; and (c) the conduct of the defendant in publishing that matter is reasonable in the circumstances: s 30(1). A recipient has an apparent interest in having information if and only if at the time of the publication, the defendant believes on reasonable grounds that the recipient has that interest: s 30(2). There are a number of matters that the Court may take into account in determining whether the conduct of the defendant in publishing the matter was reasonable in the circumstances including the extent to which the matter published distinguishes between suspicions, allegations and proven facts: s 30(3)(d); the sources of the information in the matter published and the integrity of those sources: s 30(3)(g); and whether the matter published contained the substance of the person's side of the story: s 30(3)(h). 58Her Honour referred to the latitude that should be given to police where an offence of a serious nature may have been or is about to be committed and said: 231. Doing the best I can with the submissions that have been provided, what is clear from this evidence is that no attempt was made to obtain the plaintiffs' side of the story (s 30(h)), even when it was offered, and that the allegations made by the store employees were uncritically adopted by the police officers even though it was no more than suspicion (s 30(d) and from a source whose accuracy was under question (s 30(g))). 232. I am satisfied that no defence is being ( sic) made out under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005. One of the reasons why I am satisfied that no defence has been made out is that I am satisfied that the dominant motive for the publication was malicious. 59Having foreshadowed the finding that the dominant motive for the publication was malicious the Trial Judge then turned to the consideration of malice and said: Malice 233. In Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1; (2002) 194 ALR 161; (2002) 77 ALJR 292; (2003) Aust Torts Reports 81-683; [2002] HCA 57 Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ at [76] that ( sic ) "mere proof of the defendant's ill-will, prejudice, bias, recklessness, lack of belief in truth or improper motive is not sufficient to establish malice". 234. Views which are "wrong-headed, or prejudiced, or carelessly formed, or even irrational" will not constitute or demonstrate malice (per Gleeson CJ at [5] and [13]). What is necessary is "a purpose or motive that is foreign to the occasion [of qualified privilege]" which actuates the making of the statement (at [75] per Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ). 235. The police were investigating the making of a very serious allegation against one person who is clearly intellectually disabled and another person who was a responsible member of the community, namely the person who identified himself as Mr Oddie's carer. Mr Lassanah wanted to go into the store to find out why these allegations had been made about him, in circumstances where it was obvious that at best these allegations were frivolous or erroneous and at worst they were actively mischievous. The purpose or motive that was foreign to the occasion of qualified privilege was that for a number of reasons, including concern about a respectable member of the public who is threatening to complain, which caused the police to use bullying techniques, namely to order the plaintiffs to "go home". I have not accepted the evidence of the witnesses called by the first defendant, and I find their explanation for failing to keep any record of the circumstances in which they detained and searched the plaintiffs implausible. The police officers clearly realised that there had been a mistake and that they had detained and searched a responsible member of the community and the disabled person in his care. Rather than attempt to resolve the situation, they repeated the allegations made by the store manager as if they were true. The assertion (written submissions, paragraph 114) that the police were acting reasonably and doing their job in performing their duties in accordance with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) and the Police Act 1990 (NSW) needs to be measured against the facts in this case, including the matters raised by the plaintiffs as set out at [70] above. 236. The likelihood is that the police officers realised, almost from the very first, that there had been a mistake, and that they were dealing with an intellectually disabled person and his black American carer. Even the notation of the names of the plaintiffs seem to have been done towards the end of their detention, as Leading Senior Constable Ansted says that these names were noted just before he did the CNI checks, which occurred towards the end of their period of detention (Ansted T 200-201). 237. The police officers' lack of belief in the truth of the imputations is another issue relevant to malice. They did not tell the plaintiffs what was happening, and they ordered them to go home in such terms that the ordinary bystander would believe the allegations were still on foot. 238. Accordingly, if I have erred in holding that the matter complained of was not published on an occasion protected by qualified privilege, I would be satisfied that the occasion of qualified privilege was lost by reason of the malice of the first defendant's servants or agents in publishing the matter complained of. 60The Trial Judge then considered the Cross-Claim brought by the Police for indemnity and found as follows: 265. Given the "all or nothing" approach the cross-claimant and cross-defendant have taken to the cross-claim, and the fact that I have not been addressed at all as to whether a percentage should be awarded, I do not propose to speculate on what percentage of liability should be sheeted home to the cross-defendant but to make an order for 100% indemnity or contribution. 266. I note that if I had been asked to apportion this indemnity, I would have made the same finding. The cross-defendant's servants or agents were entirely responsible, on the facts of this case, for the police being called, for the identification of the plaintiffs as potential robbers and for the persisting nature of these allegations which appear to have ended only when the police decided not to investigate the matter further and to leave the store. 267. Nor do I consider that the cross-defendant should receive any credit for the apology read out in court. It was a very late apology, and I note the evidence of Mr Lassanah that he thought this apology inadequate. He was not consulted as to its contents. It would have meant nothing to Mr Oddie, who was not only no longer in court (having been excused) but who would not have been able to understand it. 268. The cross-defendant submits it cannot be held liable for the damages for the defamation because the defamation case brought against it has been dropped: written submissions paragraph 32. This misconceives the nature of the cross-claim. It is not necessary for the cross-defendant to be sued for defamation for the first defendant/cross-claimant to bring a cross-claim. 269. Accordingly I have made an order in the cross-claim that the second defendant/cross-defendant should indemnify the first defendant/cross-claimant for 100% of the judgment in these proceedings. 61Although there is no appeal in respect of the rejection of the claim against the Police for exemplary damages it is relevant (for other reasons referred to below) to refer to her Honour's observations in respect of that claim as follows: 307. However, I do not consider that this is an appropriate case for exemplary damages. The police were in a very difficult position, with the staff of the shop having pressed the hold-up button and insisting that the plaintiffs had attempted to rob the store. They did their best to bring the whole incident to a close reasonably quickly. This is not a case of misconduct of the kind described in New South Wales v Delly [2007] NSWCA 303. Leave to Appeal 62Leave to appeal was the subject of earlier application to a Court differently constituted. The Appellant sought leave to appeal from the Judgment with respect to the false imprisonment and against the order for it to indemnify the Police with respect to the judgment against the Police for both false imprisonment and defamation. The Police sought leave to cross-appeal against the Trial Judge's findings in relation to the defences of qualified privilege at common law and qualified privilege under s 30 of the Defamation Act . 63Leave to appeal was granted to the Appellant and to the Police in relation to the defamation action with respect to so much of the Trial Judge's decision in which the defence of qualified privilege was rejected and the finding of malice was made: LVMH Watch & Jewellery Australia Pty Limited v Lassanah (4 March 2011, Unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, Tobias and Young JJA at [17]). The question of whether leave should be granted with respect to the quantum of contribution and/or indemnity for both false imprisonment and defamation was reserved to this Court. The applications for leave were otherwise refused. The Appeal 64The appeal was heard on 13 and 14 September 2011 when Mr B McClintock SC leading Mr RW Potter, of counsel, appeared for the Appellant, Mr M Neil QC leading Mr D Caspersonn, of counsel, appeared for the Police and Mr CA Evatt, of counsel, leading Ms L Evans, of counsel, appeared for the Respondents. Grounds of Appeal 65There was some controversy about the real issues for determination on this Appeal: [OB 2-3, 47, 67 and 71]. However the following issues encapsulate each of the parties' contentions as to what this Court is required to decide on this Appeal: