McFadzean & Ors v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union & Ors [2007] VSCA 289

Costs - Proportions of costs - Orders for proportions of costs to reflect mixed success and failure - Single order more readily facilitating taxation than costs by issues - Fair and just exercise of discretion in all the circumstances.

GAVAN MICHAEL McFADZEAN Firstnamed Appellant (Firstnamed Plaintiff)

KRISTEN LEES Secondnamed Appellant (Secondnamed Plaintiff)

TESSA JACKSON Thirdnamed Appellant (Thirdnamed Plaintiff)

DONNA GROSS Fourthnamed Appellant (Fifthnamed Plaintiff)

ALEXANDER JOHN BOWLES Fifthnamed Appellant (Sixthnamed Plaintiff)

LEIGH DWAN Sixthnamed Appellant (Seventhnamed Plaintiff)

AMY EPSTEIN Seventhnamed Appellant (Eighthnamed Plaintiff)

PAUL ANTHONY FOWKES Eighthnamed Appellant (Ninthnamed Plaintiff)

ELI GREIG Ninthnamed Appellant (Tenthnamed Plaintiff)

JULIE ANNE COLSON Tenthnamed Appellant (Eleventhnamed Plaintiff)

JANINE DAWSON Eleventhnamed Appellant (Twelfthnamed Plaintiff)

ENERGY UNION Firstnamed Respondent (Firstnamed Defendant)

JANE CALVERT Secondnamed Respondent (Secondnamed Defendant)

CHRISTOPHER CLIFFORD WHEELER Thirdnamed Respondent (Thirdnamed Defendant)

GEORGE MOLLOY Fourthnamed Respondent (Fourthnamed Defendant)

MICHAEL JOSEPH NOCERA Fifthnamed Respondent (Fifthnamed Defendant)

BARRY JOHN DENT Sixthnamed Respondent (Seventhnamed Defendant)

DONALD GORDON PEARCE Seventhnamed Respondent (Eighthnamed Defendant)

DAVID REECE SHEPPARD Eighthnamed Respondent (Ninthnamed Defendant)

TREVOR FRANCIS WILSON Ninthnamed Respondent (Tenthnamed Defendant)

WAYNE JOHN McGEE Tenthnamed Respondent (Twelfthnamed Defendant)

BRIAN PATRICK WHEELER Eleventhnamed Respondent (Thirteenthnamed Defendant)

CHARLIE PAUL NEMET Twelfthnamed Respondent (Fourteenthnamed Defendant)

SHANE JOHN FLANNIGAN Thirteenthnamed Respondent (Fifteenth Defendant)

WAYNE ANDREW BENSON Fourteenthnamed Respondent (Sixteenth Defendant)

**1 This is an appeal from a judgment given in the Common Law Division in a proceeding which arose out of an anti-logging demonstration and an opposing pro-logging picket in the Otway Ranges in the period between Monday 25 January 1999 and Friday 29 January 1999 ('SSP week').

2 For some time before SSP week, various people (including some of the appellants) engaged in various anti-logging protests. Some of the respondents were loggers who were affected by the protest activities and, by January 1999, the respondents had serious concern for the future of the logging industry in the Otways.

3 In early 1999, the Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union ('CFMEU') was invited to meet some of the respondents to discuss the subject of green protests against logging and, pursuant to that invitation, the CFMEU organised a public meeting for Thursday 21 January 1999. The meeting was addressed by the respondent, Jane Calvert, who was an official of the CFMEU, and by Chief Inspector Robinson ('Robinson') of the Victoria Police, who was the officer commanding the police division in which the protest area was situate. It was resolved at the meeting to undertake '...direct response against protesters including barricading same in'.

4 Pursuant to that resolution, Calvert and other respondents later met and resolved that they would picket green protesters under certain conditions at a location to be selected away from passing traffic on a one-way road into a coupe. SSP Track met that description. They also agreed that the picket would be in accordance with a protocol which required that there be no alcohol, no violence, compliance with Calvert's directions and compliance with any police directions.

5 On Sunday 24 January 1999 some of the appellants and other protesters went to SSP coupe which was approximately three quarters of a kilometre down SSP track. Being Sunday, the group did not expect to see any work being done at the coupe. They discovered, however, that the third named respondent, Christopher Wheeler, was present and working with a log loader. One of the group climbed onto the log loader and others remonstrated with Wheeler. He then drove out of the coupe.

6 The group next attempted to drive out of the coupe in their three cars, including a car belonging to the appellant, Dawson, but they were stopped at the gate by loggers blocking their passage. The group was thus prevented for some time from leaving by car, and in the course of that incident Dawson was assaulted. After a while, some of the group levered the gate from its post and by that means Dawson and another person were enabled to return to a base camp at Mt Sabine. They told other demonstrators who were there what had happened.

7 That night, some of the appellants and others camped ('the SSP camp') at the intersection of SSP track and the Seaview Ridge Road ('SRR') and, during that night, some of the loggers smashed the windows of vehicles belonging to the appellant Greig and another camper, Raemon Donato, by throwing rocks from a passing vehicle.

8 At about midday on Monday 25 January 1999 approximately 60 loggers, their families and other supporters and Calvert arrived at the intersection of SSP track and SRR. The loggers appeared by and large to have a clear chain of command, with Calvert in charge. She was the 'clearly identified spokesperson' for the respondents, and all respondents acknowledged that she was their leader. Calvert told the appellants that it was the intention of the loggers to picket the SRR. She said that if any of the appellants wished to leave, they should leave now, because they would not be permitted to leave once the picket was in place.

9 By mid-afternoon the respondents had imposed the 'picket' by assembling across the SRR road so as to appear to block it, and the picket thus remained in place for the rest of SSP week. The respondents also established a second picket across SRR at its intersection with Turton Track, approximately 1.5 kilometres from SSP Track.

10 The respondents kept the police informed of their activities and, under Robinson's command, police established a roster which instructed members that:**

...logging contractors have blockaded the green demonstrators and set up an official picket line indicating that they will not allow the Greens to leave the area.

Instructions from Chief Inspector Robinson requires [sic] us to supply a member at this picket line to prevent breaches of the peace. Members will take no active role as to the legality of this picket at this stage.

**11 The picket extended into the bush each side of SRR 'as far as sight and sound'. The respondents placed cans attached to fishing lines in that area in order to alert them to the movement of persons through the bush. The respondents also used chainsaws, beat makeshift drums, ran generators close to the appellants' camp, threw stones against the appellants' tents and cars and engaged in other like conduct in order to harass and annoy the appellants.

12 After the picket had been established, Calvert offered to escort the appellants safely through the picket line if they agreed never again to engage in any form of protest at a logging coupe. The appellants refused to enter into any such agreement.

13 During the week Calvert had several discussions with the respondent, McFadzean, about the possibility of a general agreement, involving the protest organisation, Otway Ranges Environment Network Inc. ('OREN'), not to protest in the Otways for the remainder of the season. McFadzean did not exclude the possibility out of hand and it was not until the night of Thursday 28 January 1999 or possibly the morning of 29 January 1999 that it became clear that OREN would not enter into such an agreement.

14 It was possible for the appellants to leave the SSP camp by walking out through the bush and then seeking transport away from the area. 'As the crow flies', it was only about 1.5 km through the bush to Turton Track. The terrain between SSP camp and Turton Track was, however, densely vegetated and, apart from a narrow strip of relatively flat land beside SRR, it was rugged and steep. Walking out through the bush would also have necessitated the appellants leaving some of their possessions, including motor vehicles, at the SSP camp. But, despite such difficulties as that may have entailed, two of the appellants, Greig and Fowkes, did walk out in that fashion on 26 January 1999 and later walked back in again. McFadzean also attempted to walk out on 26 January 1999 but was spotted on the SRR beyond the first picket and returned by two of the respondents by car to the campsite.

15 On the morning of Thursday 28 January 1999 McFadzean sought permission to leave in order to obtain medical attention for what he said was a problem with his eyes and also in order he said to accelerate discussions about the possibility of the general agreement with OREN. He was allowed to go on that basis.

16 On the same day, permission was sought for Jackson to be allowed to leave to obtain medical attention for a psychiatric condition from which she was said to be suffering. Initially, permission was refused. Later police became involved and eventually, after several hours, police summoned an ambulance which was permitted to cross the picket line in order to take Jackson out.

17 Later in the afternoon of Thursday 28 January 1999 Mr Bela (Bill) Gross, who was the father of the appellant Gross, walked in with some others in order to bring his daughter extra blankets and warm clothing. He then asked Calvert for permission to be allowed to leave along SRR, but she refused. Gross therefore sought police assistance and the officer concerned sought instructions from Robinson, but Robinson declined to provide police assistance. Eventually, however, Calvert agreed to allow Gross to leave via SRR if he signed a non-protest agreement, which he did, and it was witnessed by one of the police officers present at the picket.

18 The respondents finally removed the picket lines on the morning Friday 29 January 1999 and within a couple of hours the appellants packed up and left the area by car along SRR.**

19 The substance of the appellants' claims below was that:

1. All of the appellants had been subjected to false imprisonment during so much of the period between 25 January 1999 and 29 January 1999 that they were not permitted to leave along the SRR.
2. The appellant, Dawson, had been assaulted and battered by the respondents C C Wheeler and Wilson on 24 January 1999 at the gate to SSP coupe.
3. All of the appellants while at the SSP camp between the 25 January and 29 January 1999 had been assaulted by the loggers subjecting them to threats, intimidation, stone throwing, noise and other harassing conduct, which caused the appellants to fear for their safety.
4. All of the appellants had thus been subjected to conduct which caused injury giving rise to a claim under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton.[1]
5. All of the appellants had been subjected to a public nuisance by being prevented by the loggers from leaving via the SRR.
6. As a result of the foregoing, the appellants McFadzean, Lees, Jackson, Dwan, Greig and Dawson had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD'), and psychiatric, psychological and other injuries, including pain and suffering, and the appellant Colson had suffered migraine, anxiety, stress, sleeplessness, cuts, and pain and suffering.
7. By reason of the contumelious conduct of the loggers, the appellants were entitled to exemplary damages.

20 After a trial before judge alone, which extended over 63 sitting days, the judge rejected the bulk of the appellants' claims. His Honour found that:

1. The appellants had not been falsely imprisoned, because:

1. they could have left the clearing via the SRR by asking the police to assist them through the picket ('the police gate'); 2. further alternatively, it was practicable and reasonable for the appellants to walk out through the bush ('the bush gate'); and

1. further alternatively, the appellants did not wish to leave the SSP camp.
2. The general allegation that all appellants had been assaulted was not made out because, although the loggers' conduct was calculated to annoy or inconvenience the appellants and to deprive them of sleep, and was capable of causing alarm or fright, it did not cause any appellant to be put in fear or reasonable apprehension of impending contact by a respondent.
3. The appellant Dawson had been assaulted by the respondents

C C Wheeler and Wilson on 24 January 1999, entitling her to damages of $2,500. 4. The appellant Gross had been assaulted by the respondent Calvert, entitling her to damages of $1,000. 5. The conduct of the loggers, particularly in running chainsaws and generators close to the appellants' camp and beating drums, was intended to deprive the appellants of sleep and to alarm and frighten the appellants. 6. As a result of such conduct on the part of the respondents CFMEU, Calvert, C C Wheeler, Molloy, Nocera, Dent, Pearce, Sheppard, Wilson, McGee, Nemet and Flannigan, the appellant Jackson suffered PTSD which entitled her to damages of $30,000, including aggravated damages of $10,000, pursuant to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. 7. As a result of such conduct on the part of the respondents CFMEU, Calvert, C C Wheeler, Molloy, Nocera, Dent, Pearce, Sheppard, Wilson, McGee, Nemet and Flannigan, the appellant Lees suffered PTSD entitling her to damages of $30,000, including aggravated damages of $10,000 pursuant to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. 8. As a result of such conduct on the part of the respondents CFMEU, Calvert, C C Wheeler, Molloy, Nocera, Dent, Pearce, Sheppard, Wilson, McGee, Nemet and Flannigan, the appellant Dawson suffered PTSD entitling her to damages of $37,500, including aggravated damages of $12,500, pursuant to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. 9. As a result of such conduct on the part of the respondents CFMEU, Calvert, C C Wheeler, Molloy, Nocera, Dent, Pearce, Sheppard, Wilson, McGee, Nemet and Flannigan, the appellant Greig suffered PTSD entitling him to damages of $22,500, including aggravated damages of $7,500, pursuant to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. 10. As a result of such conduct on the part of the respondents CFMEU, Calvert, C C Wheeler, Molloy, Nocera, Dent, Pearce, Sheppard, Wilson, McGee, Nemet and Flannigan, the appellant Colson suffered migraine entitling her to damages of $2,250, including aggravated damages of $750, pursuant to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. 11. The appellants McFadzean and Dwan failed to prove that the respondents' offending behaviour caused the psychiatric condition or any of the other damage of which they complained. 12. The appellant Jackson was unreasonably denied substantial, free and uninterrupted use of SRR on 25 January 1999, causing her detriment beyond that suffered by the public at large and entitling her to damages for public nuisance against the respondents CFMEU, Calvert, C C Wheeler, Molloy, Nocera, Dent, Pearce, Sheppard, Wilson, McGee, Nemet and Flannigan in the sum of $7,500. 13. No other appellant was obstructed from walking or driving along SRR during SSP week. 14. In the circumstances, no award for exemplary damages should be made.

21 The appellants now appeal against the judgment on grounds which may be summarised as follows:

1. Ground 1: The judge erred in finding that the appellants had not been falsely imprisoned by the respondents, in that:
   1. the finding was wrong in law; and
   2. further or alternatively, the finding was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence.
2. Grounds 3 and 6: The judge was wrong in fact in finding that there was a 'police gate' through which the appellants could have left the SSP camp along SRR or at least wrong in finding that the 'police gate' was a reasonable means of egress.[2]
3. Grounds 2 and 5: The judge was wrong in fact in finding that there was a 'bush gate' through which the appellants could have left the SSP camp or at least wrong in finding that the 'bush gate' was a reasonable means of egress.[3]
4. Grounds 4 and 7: The judge was wrong in fact in finding that the appellants did not wish to leave the SSP camp.[4]

5. Ground 8: Alternatively, accepting the judge's findings of fact, the judge was wrong in law in holding that the appellants were not falsely imprisoned.
6. Grounds 9-11: The judge was wrong in fact in finding that no appellant other than Jackson was obstructed on 25 January 1999 from walking or driving along SRR, and hence wrong in law in holding that the appellants had not been subjected to a public nuisance.
7. Ground 12: The judge erred in law or alternatively in the exercise of discretion in determining not to award exemplary damages in respect of the tortious conduct which he found to have been committed against the appellants Lees,[5] Jackson,[6] Gross,[7] Greig,[8] Colson[9] and Dawson.[10]
8. Grounds 13 and 14: The judge erred in law or alternatively in the exercise of discretion in refusing to award the successful appellants their costs, and in ordering them to pay costs to the respondents.

22 We propose to deal first with the question of false imprisonment and as part of that with the questions of whether the judge erred in finding that there was a police gate or a bush gate which was a reasonable means of egress. We shall deal then with the question of public nuisance and as part of that with the question of whether the appellants demonstrated that they suffered any particular damage by reason of the nuisance. In the final part of these reasons we shall deal with the issues of exemplary damages and costs.

**23 The judge began his consideration of the claims of false imprisonment with a recitation of relevant legal principles. Starting from the point that false imprisonment is constituted by unlawfully subjecting another to total restraint of movement, his Honour observed that:

a) The restraint must be total, although it need not imply the use of physical force - it is sufficient if there be submission to the control of another after being given to understand that without submission there will be compulsion;

b) The restraint may be comprised of a threat against the person or valuable property;

c) In some cases, the restraint may exist in submission in face of a threat, even if the victim does not apprehend that s/he is being imprisoned;

d) The restraint must, however, be imposed contrary to the person's will.

24 The judge also considered the position of a plaintiff who, although aware of the existence of a threat, chooses to remain confined for his or her own reasons and thus in effect is uninfluenced by the threat. His Honour took the view that such a plaintiff could not succeed in a claim of false imprisonment because it would be unrealistic to say that a person who chooses to be and remain at a particular place for his or her own reasons suffers indignity, mental suffering, disgrace or the like by reason of the conduct of another of which s/he knows but which in fact is irrelevant to him or her being and remaining where s/he is.[11]

25 The judge turned next to a detailed consideration of the evidence and on the basis of that made the following findings of fact:

a) The picket was established on SRR on the afternoon of 25 January 1999 by the respondents acting in concert and it remained there until the morning of 29 January 1999.[12]

b) From the afternoon of 25 January 1999, it was the respondent, Calvert's, position, to be attributed in effect to the other respondents, that a protester would not be permitted to leave along the SRR unless either the protester gave a personal commitment not to protest in the Otways for the remainder of the summer or OREN entered into such a no-protest agreement.[13]

c) The picket was an 'act of persuasion'[14] in that what Calvert said to the appellants was apt to create the impression that the picket was a true barrier to egress by protesters along the SRR[15] and the respondents' actions on the afternoon of 25 January 1999 did indeed cause 'particular protesters' to believe that the respondents would not allow them to leave along the SRR.[16]

d) There was a 'police gate' out of the picket, in the sense that if any appellants had asked the police to be allowed to leave along the SRR, the police would have intervened to enable them to do so.[17] But the appellants found it unpalatable to ask the police for assistance[18] and the judge was not persuaded that any of the appellants [with the exception of McFadzean and Jackson on 28 January 1999] did in fact ask the police for assistance to get out.[19]

e) There was also a reasonably available means of egress by foot by one of several routes[20] overland through the bush to Turton Track[21] but, with the exception of Greig and Fowkes, who walked out that way on 26 January 1999, none of the appellants attempted that means of egress.

f) McFadzean formed the wish to leave on 28 January 1999 and was taken out in one of the respondent's vehicles.[22]

g) Jackson formed the wish to leave on 28 January 1999 and was taken out in an ambulance.[23]

h) Up to and including 26 January 1999, 'the principal reason' which activated the appellants to remain at the SSP camp was to preclude work at the SSP coupe[24] and 'their decision to stay [was] not affected by the events of 24-25 January'.[25]

i) After 26 January 1999 a range of considerations bore upon the appellants' state of mind, but it remained the wish of each of the protesters to remain at SSP.

26 His Honour thus concluded that [with the exception of Jackson and Lees] 'no plaintiff had established that he or she was falsely imprisoned during SSP week' 'at least because there were two means of egress available and[26] neither of them was unreasonable from the perspective of any plaintiff. There was a police gate and there was travel through the bush'.**

**27 The appellants attack the judge's conclusion that there was a 'police gate' on two bases. They submit that it was not open to his Honour to treat the notion of a police gate as a defence to the claim of false imprisonment - because the respondents did not plead that a police gate was an available means of escape; the concept of a police gate was not clearly identified in evidence; and it was not put to the appellants that they could have escaped through the police gate. Alternatively, the appellants say that, if it were open to the judge to consider the issue of the police gate, his Honour's finding that the police gate was a reasonable means of egress was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence.

28 We see no merit in the first point. It is plain that the question of the police gate was one of the central issues in the case and that both sides conducted their cases at trial on that basis. By their statement of claim the appellants alleged that the actions of the respondents denied the appellants their liberty, and by their defence the respondents denied that the appellants were thereby falsely imprisoned and averred that the appellants were 'not prevented by the Defendants from leaving the area of the intersection'.[27] During the trial counsel for the appellants led evidence about conversations between the appellants and the police (on the basis that it supported the appellants' contention that 'they were not free to leave, it is evidence of a relevant fact')[28] and the appellants were cross-examined about their conversations with the police without objection to relevance.[29] Correspondingly, counsel for the respondents opened the respondents' case before the judge on the basis that the protesters were told that they could avail themselves of whatever means of egress they wished, but not through the picket and in response to a question from the judge, counsel for the respondents agreed that the respondents contended that:**

... there wasn't imprisonment in fact, and one way you can realise it's not imprisonment in fact is if these people had wanted to go out, the police would have facilitated it. So the issue of what the police were prepared to do is an issue between the parties, because you want to rely upon it to show that the imprisonment was incomplete...

**29 As to the second point, counsel for the appellants put two arguments. He submitted that, assuming the judge's findings of fact on the point were correct, as a matter of law the existence of the police gate did not make the appellants' restriction to SSP any the less a false imprisonment. Alternatively, he contended that, assuming as a matter of law that the existence of a police gate could prevent the detention of an appellant amounting to a false imprisonment, it was not open on the evidence to conclude that there was in fact a police gate of that kind.

30 The first argument faces the difficulty that it was not presented before the judge below. Apparently, both sides assumed that a police gate was capable at law of providing a defence to false imprisonment. The issue for the judge was thus confined to whether as a matter of fact there was a police gate. But it is not suggested that there would be any prejudice to the respondents in allowing the matter to be considered for the first time on appeal. We propose therefore to do so.

31 We start with basic principles. First, we agree in substance with his Honour's statement of the law.[30] The conduct with which the law of false imprisonment is concerned must be of a coercive character and amount to a total restraint. Accordingly, the question of whether a defendant's conduct has influenced a plaintiff's action will not necessarily determine whether the plaintiff has been detained against his or her will. In some circumstances, false imprisonment may be made out even though the conduct of the defendant has not had any influence upon the plaintiff's course of action. Neither is the converse always the case. The fact that the defendant's conduct may have influenced the plaintiff will not always lead to the conclusion that there has been an involuntary submission by the plaintiff to the defendant's restraint.

32 In Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England the discussion of the crime of false imprisonment commences with the observation:**

We are next to consider the violation of the right of personal liberty. This is effected by the injury of false imprisonment..." Every unlawful restraint on the liberty of a person by confining him in custody is a false imprisonment and a common law crime.[31]

**33 False imprisonment was later described in 'Termes de la Ley' as where a party 'hath not his liberty freely to go at all times to all places wither he will'.[32] Sir James FitzJames Stephen's A Digest of the Criminal Law treated false imprisonment as a category of assault as '(c) the act of depriving another of his liberty ... without the consent of the person assaulted or with such consent if it is obtained by fraud.'[33]

34 In Street's, Foundations of Legal Liability, the concept is discussed in these terms:**

Accordingly it has long been settled that actual physical constraint, or physical contact, is not necessary to make an imprisonment. Coercion of any kind, as where the person imprisoned yields without resistance to superior force or to authority, is enough. But some form of coercion is essential. One who is prevailed upon by false representations to go and remain at a particular place is not imprisoned, unless, perchance, force or intimidation be used to prevent departure. The tort of imprisonment is so far predicated upon restraint of personal freedom that one cannot be held liable therefore unless it affirmatively appears that detention was contrary to the will of the person alleged to be imprisoned.[34]

**35 There are statements in some of the older authorities, mainly in the nineteenth century, to the effect that every false imprisonment connotes an assault.[35] In Macpherson v Brown,[36] however, Bray CJ concluded that the weight of modern authority favours the view that false imprisonment and assault are two distinct crimes despite the existence of those older decisions.[37] Thus a plaintiff who yields to the threat of force to avoid the necessity of actual force may also have an action for false imprisonment.[38] Where, however, there is no application of force, there must be evidence of complete submission by the person alleging imprisonment to the control of the other party. Thus, as Murray CJ said in Symes v Mahon,[39] there will be no false imprisonment if there is only partial obstruction of the will, whatever inconvenience it may bring, if the means of escape was available.[40]

36 In R v Garrett[41] it was held that the victim was falsely imprisoned in circumstances where he did not wish to leave because of his fear for the safety of another person. King CJ found:**

Restraint of liberty is put upon a person not only by actual physical restraint, but also by threats to that person or threats to another. Gray was threatened with a knife and required to remain in the kitchen. He is not less under restraint because he made no attempt to escape. The fact that he was unwilling to attempt escape because of his unwillingness to abandon Miss Fuller does not imply consent to the restraint which was put upon him. The unlawful threats which the appellant made to Miss Fuller, no less than the unlawful threats which he made to Gray, operated to deprive Gray of his liberty of movement. In my opinion the whole of the circumstances which the appellant created with the intention of imprisoning Gray and Miss Fuller must be looked at and when that is done it is apparent that Gray was unwilling to be confined to the kitchen and remained there only because of the threats made to him and Miss Fuller. He was therefore imprisoned without his consent and this ground of appeal fails.[42]

As a proposition of law, I do not think there is any arbitrary rule that the threat which causes the person to submit to confinement against his will must be a threat of physical force to this person. The will of a person may be at least as effectively overborne by threats of physical force to other people or even by threats of damage to valuable personal property. In my view, it is sufficient that the defendant restrains the liberty of a person against his will by threats of immediate physical force to the safety of another person or by other immediate intimidating conduct intended to bring about that result. There is support for this conclusion in the American jurisdictions: see Second Restatement of Torts, paras 40A and 43; Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed) pp 49-50. On the other hand, I consider the appellant is correct in the submission that there can be no false imprisonment if the alleged victim agrees to go or to remain in a particular area nominated by the defendant of his own free will and not out of submission to a threat. I[t] may, however, be difficult to determine as a matter of fact, whether a person submits to a restriction of liberty against his will or of his own free choice.[43]

**37 The American Restatement of the tort of false imprisonment requires a plaintiff to establish that s/he did not consent to the confinement.[44] The restraint must be upon another's liberty to come and go and must be against his or her will.[45] Voluntary consent to confinement does not constitute false imprisonment. The tort inheres in restraint against the plaintiff's will, whereby the plaintiff yields to the constraint of a threat, express or implied or through physical force.[46] It has sometimes been described as the essence of false imprisonment that it be the 'unconsented restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another.' The submission by the prisoner must be in response to duress sufficient to make the consent given ineffective to bar the action.[47] 'It is essential that the restraint be against the plaintiff's will; and if he agrees of his own free choice to surrender his freedom of motion or to accommodate the desires of another, rather than yielding to the constraint of a threat, then there is no imprisonment.'[48] There is, however, Canadian authority that it will be imprisonment '... if the plaintiff goes along with another ... in order to avoid a scene which would be embarrassing.'[49]

38 A passage from the frequently cited judgment of Atkin LJ in Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd[50] sets out a variety of circumstances in which a person could be imprisoned without knowing it.[51] More recently, decisions such as Go v The Queen[52] and R v Awang[53] have recognised that there may be an unlawful detention of personal liberty at common law where 'consent is vitiated by fraud or lack of capacity or lack of knowledge.'[54] Each of those cases, however, proceeds on the implicit assumption that the restraint of liberty would have been against the will of the victim if the victim had known of the restraint and had capacity to object.

39 The decisions in, Macpherson,[55] Go[56] and Awang[57] were followed in JCS v The Queen.[58] In that case the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held that an indictment on a count of false imprisonment was not rendered defective by omission of the words 'detained her against her will'.[59] The court reasoned that the essential element of the offence of unlawful imprisonment is the restraint of liberty and that it is not essential to prove that the restraint was against a person's will.[60] But once again, as in Go and Awang, it was implicit in JCS that, in order to be actionable, the restraint of liberty must be without the victim's consent.

40 On one view of the matter, the decision of the House of Lords in R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust; Ex parte L[61] throws doubt on the idea that a person may be falsely imprisoned without knowing about it. In that case the respondent, who was autistic and profoundly mentally retarded, and therefore incapable of choice as to the environment in which he lived, was alleged to have been falsely imprisoned by the mental health authority. In the Court of Appeal, Lord Woolf MR, citing the judgment of Atkin LJ in Meering,[62] treated the question of whether a person was detained as a question of objective fact which did not depend upon the presence or absence of consent or knowledge.[63] His Lordship considered that a person is detained in law 'if those who have control over the premises in which he is have the intention that he shall not be permitted to leave those premises and have the ability to prevent him from leaving.'[64] The Court of Appeal thus rejected the conclusion of the trial judge that the respondent was 'free to leave'; reasoning instead that if had he attempted to do so, he would have been restrained.[65] On appeal to the House of Lords, however, the majority concluded that the respondent had not in fact been detained, since he had made no attempt to leave and had been accommodated in an unlocked ward and, therefore, that it could not be said that he had actually been deprived of his liberty. Lord Goff of Chieveley, who delivered the principal speech, based his reasoning on the requirement that for the tort of false imprisonment to be committed there must in fact be a complete deprivation of, or restraint upon the plaintiff's liberty, and on the judgment of Lord Macnaghten in Syed Mahamad Yusef-Ud-Din v Secretary of State for India in Council[66] that the deprivation of liberty must be actual rather than potential. His Lordship continued:**

And in the Meering case [at] 54-55 Atkin LJ was careful to draw a distinction between restraint upon the plaintiff's liberty which is conditional upon his seeking to exercise his freedom (which would not amount to false imprisonment), and an actual restraint upon his liberty, as where the defendant decided to restrain the plaintiff within a room and placed a policeman outside the door to stop him leaving (which would amount to false imprisonment).[67]

The majority view appears therefore to support the conclusion that there will be no false imprisonment if a person, aware of the potential for restraint, does not seek to exercise his or her right to freedom of movement. But Lord Nolan and Lord Steyn dissented from that conclusion; Lord Steyn referring to Meering and other cases where false imprisonment was found in circumstances where the person lacked the capacity to grant or refuse consent to their detention.[68]

**41 Be all that as it may, however, it remains that the essence of the action of false imprisonment is the compelling of a person to stay at a particular place against his or her will.[69] Accordingly, where a plaintiff has full knowledge and comprehension of the defendant's coercive conduct amounting to total restraint, the action depends upon proof that, were it not for the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff would not have submitted to the restraint. Consequently, it is not sufficient in law that conduct of the defendant have contributed to or influenced the plaintiff's decision to remain unless the conduct has overborne the plaintiff's will. It must be shown that, but for the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff would not have yielded to the total restraint; that the plaintiffs' determination to remain was a coercive consequence of the defendant's acts.[70]

42 Secondly, as the judge observed, although the idea of false imprisonment is sometimes expressed in terms of a restriction on liberty which must be total, that does not mean that a restriction short of lock and key may not be actionable. In each case, it is a question of fact as to whether a restriction is so severe as to be characterised as false imprisonment. For example, if a victim is confined to an island, and the only means of egress is by swimming through dangerous waters to the mainland, there is no reasonable means of egress and the victim's confinement to the island is likely to amount to false imprisonment. If, however, there is a reasonable means of egress or escape from detention, the restriction may not be enough. So, if a victim is confined to a room, and there is a reasonable means of egress through a door, the victim is in effect free to leave the room and there is no false imprisonment.

43 Thirdly, where there is a reasonable means of egress, it appears to us that it does not matter that the victim may not make use of it. So long as there is a reasonable means of egress, there can be no imprisonment. Conversely, if the only means of egress is not reasonable, the false imprisonment will not come to an end unless and until the victim does make use of it. In short, so long as a victim remains confined without a reasonable means of escape, he or she will be falsely imprisoned.

44 Fourthly, and consequently, where there is a reasonable means of egress, but the victim hesitates before making use of it, the period of hesitation will not count as a period of false imprisonment.

45 Fifthly and conversely, we take the view that, where there is not a reasonable means of egress, and the victim hesitates before effecting an escape via an unreasonable means of escape, the period of hesitation would count as a period of false imprisonment. We do not consider that an intentional tortfeasor should be heard to defend or plead in mitigation of a charge of false imprisonment that a more courageous victim may have escaped via an unreasonable means of escape or so escaped more quickly than the victim did in fact.

46 Turning then to the notion of a police gate, if a victim is confined without physical means of egress, the victim may be able to call for police assistance. If the police answer the call and procure the victim's release, the imprisonment will come to an end. But, obviously, the false imprisonment will have lasted until the release is effected. So, therefore, it appears to us that the ability to call police to intervene in an unlawful false imprisonment is not to be equated to a reasonable means of egress.

47 What then of a victim who is detained without physical means of egress, who is in a position to call police, but who out of a sense of embarrassment or fear of an adverse police reaction, or for some other reason, decides not to call? In our view, the answer is the same. Logic and common sense suggest that, just as an intentional wrongdoer should not be heard to defend a claim of false imprisonment on the basis that a more courageous victim might have escaped by an unreasonable means of escape, a wrongdoer should not be heard to defend a claim of false imprisonment on the basis that a more sanguine victim would have called the police.[71] The victim is without reasonable means of egress and so, until and unless the victim is released, the victim is falsely imprisoned.

48 It may be that the availability of police assistance would bear on the amount of damages recoverable for false imprisonment. A victim who could have obtained police assistance, but chose not to do so, might be awarded less than a victim who was unable to contact police or who police refused to assist. There might also be some reduction in damages in the case of a victim who delayed in making the call. But each case depends on its facts and a tortfeasor must take the victim as found. So, therefore, if a victim were sufficiently affected by embarrassment or timorousness or hysteria as to be deterred from seeking police assistance, or to delay in making the call, there might be no reduction in damages. Moreover, and regardless of any reduction in damages, there would still be false imprisonment and it would still continue so long as the victim was confined against his or her will.

49 So then to this case. Assuming for present purposes that the effect of the picket was to confine the appellants against their will, without reasonable physical means of egress, it would follow that the appellants were falsely imprisoned. In that event, in our opinion, neither the fact that the appellants might have summoned police assistance, nor the possibility that the police, if asked, might have procured their release, would have lessened the fact of the false imprisonment. Nor would it have altered the fact of the false imprisonment that the appellants chose not to ask for police assistance. In the circumstances postulated, the appellants would have been falsely imprisoned until and unless released and the only likely variable would have been the amount of recoverable damages.

50 In the result, we are unable to agree with the judge's conclusion that the existence of a police gate would have been an answer in itself to the claims of false imprisonment. In our view, it would not have been. But for reasons to which we shall come, we do not think that it makes any difference to the outcome of the appeal.**

**51 We turn next to the question of the bush gate. Under Ground 5, the appellants complain that it was not permissible for the judge to take the possibility of bush egress into account - because it was not pleaded; not opened; not put to the appellants; and not otherwise treated as being in issue in the trial. Alternatively, under Ground 2, the appellants contend that, if it were permissible for the judge to take the matter of bush egress into account, it was not open on the evidence to conclude that passage through the bush was a reasonable means of egress.

52 We see no merit in the suggestion that the bush gate was not pleaded. By their defence the respondents denied the appellants' allegation of false imprisonment and averred that the appellants were 'not prevented by the Defendants from leaving the area of the intersection'.[72] Consequently, the appellants bore the onus of proving that they were prevented from leaving the area of the intersection, and to that end they called a considerable volume of evidence as to just how difficult it was to walk out through the bush. Equally, when counsel for the respondents opened the respondents' case before the judge, he did so on the basis that the evidence would show that the protesters were told that they could avail themselves of whatever means of egress they wished, but not through the picket, and that the protesters were encouraged to walk through the bush to leave the area.[73]

53 In our view, there is also nothing in the point that it was not put to the appellants that they could have got out through the 'bush gate'. As the trial transcript shows, counsel for the appellant asked several of the appellants in chief whether they had considered leaving through the bush.[74] Additionally, appellants who left through the bush gave evidence in chief about their journeys.[75] Others were cross-examined about leaving through the bush[76] or were examined about their ability to leave through the bush.[77] A number of the appellants gave evidence in chief as to their age, level of fitness, sex, apparel and items which they carried as they undertook journeys through the bush. In many cases they were subjected to cross-examination on those matters and on the various routes that they took. There was no objection raised to any of that cross-examination, no doubt because the subject of the evidence was regarded as being in issue.

54 That leaves the question of whether egress through the bush gate was reasonable.

55 The authorities reveal that there are four factors to be considered in determining whether a means of egress is reasonable. They are: threat or danger to the self; threat or danger to property (including property of others); distance and time; and legality.

56 What constitutes a threat or danger to self varies with the circumstances of the case. Thus, for example, in The Balmain New Ferry Company v Robertson,[78] the plaintiff, having paid a ferry fare, did not wish to wait for a ferry but refused to pay a further amount to leave the ferry dock. As a result, the plaintiff was constrained by the ferry terminals' turnstiles. Griffith CJ, in considering the justification of the employees of the ferry company in restraining the plaintiff, reasoned that there was no imprisonment because the plaintiff would be free to leave the premises by water.[79]

57 In R v Macquarrie and Budge,[80] the defendant set the victim afloat at full speed on a boat that he did not know how to steer. It was argued that the victim enjoyed a means of escape in that he might have jumped overboard. The argument was rejected. Although the term or expression was not used as such, the case is often cited for a proposition that means of escape must be 'reasonable'.[81]

58 In Burton v Davies and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Limited,[82] the defendant drove so quickly as to prevent the victim alighting from his vehicle. Townley J stated:[83]**

This cause of action is founded upon his detaining her in his motor truck without her consent, not by actual physical force, but by driving at such a speed as to prevent her from alighting. I am of the opinion that such conduct upon the defendant's part amounted to the wrong of false imprisonment. If I lock a person in a room with a window from which he may jump to the ground at the risk of life or limb, I cannot be heard to say that he was not imprisoned because he was free to jump from the window.

Burton thus stands for the proposition that the means of escape must be without danger to the plaintiff.

**59 In R v Garrett[84] the defendant coerced the victim by holding a knife to the throat of a third party. The Court held that, although no threats were made to the liberty of the victim per se, the threat to the safety of the third party was enough to constitute the requisite captivity.[85] Rather than concerning the concept of egress, R v Garrett stands for the proposition that the requisite confinement of a victim may occur by means other than physical restraint - in this case by overbearing the victim's will through threats to the safety of a third party[86] - but obviously the two considerations are closely related.

60 Some of the authorities suggest that there needs to be a serious, perhaps even life threatening, element to the means of escape before it will be deemed unreasonable. Whittaker v Sanford[87] (in which jumping from a speeding car was deemed unreasonable) is one example; the approach in Macquarie and Budge[88] is another. But circumstances will vary. Swimming away from a ferry jetty is reasonable;[89] swimming away from a speeding boat is unreasonable;[90] and jumping from a speeding car or truck is unreasonable.[91] United States' authority articulates the test that the threat of force or danger to which the plaintiff submits must be 'reasonably perceived', requiring both an objective and subjective element.[92]

61 Threat or danger to property or the property of others is an equally protean conception. One United States authority serves to demonstrate the point. In Ashland Dry Goods v Wages[93] a woman was suspected by a shop assistant to have engaged in shoplifting. Store security took the woman's purse and refused to return it until an investigation was conducted. The woman was free to leave - but only without her purse. It was held that, given the woman knew she was innocent and feared that something could be planted in her purse, she was effectively imprisoned.[94]

62 The notion of 'illegality' is, in this context, also variable. There is authority that egress may be reasonable even if it requires a plaintiff to commit a minor trespass.[95]

63 In this case, there was evidence of a threat and danger to the appellants and to their property and the property of others, through the incidents of vandalism to cars and tents at the protest site. The appellants were free to leave but only if they walked out and did not return. There was evidence that rocks and stones had been thrown at vehicles and tents, as well as attempts being made to remove pegs or kick down tents.[96] There was evidence, too, that some of the protestors feared damage to property if they left it unattended.

64 But following a thorough analysis of the evidence, the judge concluded that such an apprehension, if truly held, was ill-founded. Some of the events said to lead to the apprehension (such as the rock throwing and tent tampering) were conducted only to inconvenience or annoy the protestors. Had they left, the acts would have ceased.[97] Furthermore, the judge concluded that if the protestors had left, it was 'highly likely that a police presence would have been maintained'[98] and the property would have been secure.

65 With respect, we agree with that finding. The case of Ashland Dry Goods[99] mentioned above is distinguishable on that basis.

66 There is not a great deal of authority or commentary on how distance and time may affect the reasonableness of egress. It is clear enough, however, that unreasonableness in this context means more than mere inconvenience and that it depends on all the circumstances of the case. So, for example, in The Balmain Ferry case, it was apparently thought to be reasonable for the plaintiff to have to swim from Circular Quay to the shore. But presumably that depended upon the physical condition of the plaintiff.

67 Contrast the possibility of submitting an individual to a requirement to run on a treadmill for two hours in order to cause a locked door to open. Presumably, it would be unreasonable if the individual were elderly, unfit and asthmatic. But it might not be unreasonable if s/he were younger, fitter and otherwise healthy. It might also depend on the pace at which the treadmill was set.

68 To take a further example, if a person were required to escape from a locked room by crawling through an air conditioning vent for two hours, it might not be unreasonable in some circumstances, but it could be if the person suffered from claustrophobia.

69 As has been seen, the principal way in which the appellants put their case in false imprisonment was to say that egress through the bush was unreasonable because the traverse through the bush was too demanding. The judge assessed that question of unreasonableness in four ways: first, by assessing the physical health and fitness of the appellants;[100] secondly, by considering the clothing and footwear worn by the appellants during SSP week; thirdly, by assessing the terrain to be traversed; and fourthly, by considering the experience of those protestors who walked through the bush, generally, and from SSP to Turton Track, in particular, during SSP week. It is convenient for us to do the same.

70 The judge's findings on physical health and fitness maybe summarised as establishing that each of Fowkes, Greig, Jaskierniak, Douglas, Molloy, Jackson, Dwan, Lees, McFadzean, Dawson, Bowles, Colson and Epstein enjoyed varying degrees of fitness, but none such as to preclude them from walking through the bush.

71 His Honour considered in detail the suffering by Dawson of a foot ulcer[101] but determined on the basis of her conduct and demeanour during and immediately after SSP week that the ulcer did not preclude her from journeying through the bush to Turton Track. The judge acknowledged that Bowles was an asthmatic but it is to be inferred from his Honour's analysis that he did not view Bowles' condition as precluding his escape through the bush.[102] Colson was said to have weak ankles but, as his Honour found, not so weak as to impair her movement through the bush.[103] Epstein expressed various fears about the bush journey but again nothing which the judge considered enough to preclude completion of the bush journey.[104]

72 As to the second matter of clothing, the judge examined the varying states of clothing and footwear of the appellants: some wore long trousers - Fowkes, Douglas, Jackson, Dwan, Lees, McFadzean, Bowles, Epstein, Forrester and Sarah Gross; others wore shorts - Molloy; some wore shoes or boots - Fowkes, Molloy, Dwan, Lees, McFadzean, Dawson, Epstein, Forrester and Sarah Gross; others wore sandals - Jaskierniak and Jackson, while Bowles was bare footed. As a result of that process, it emerged that Jackson was the only appellant about whose clothing and footwear the judge had any doubt.[105] Even then, after comparing her footwear with that of Jaskierniak, the judge was not persuaded that it was a problem.

73 As to the terrain to be traversed, it was common ground that the distance between the SSP Track and Turton Track travelling via SRR, a public gravel road, was about one kilometre but less than 1.5 kilometres. The distance from the intersection of SRR and Turton Track to Apollo Bay was over 12.5 kilometres; the distance from that intersection to Beech Forest was 7 kilometres. The evidence also established that there was a strip of relatively flat land running parallel to and east of SRR north of SSP Track. To the east of that strip there was a sharp fall to the east. The terrain dropped steeply into a gully close to SRR and involved varying vertical drops of 10 metres, over 20 metres and 50 metres. Stepping off SSP Track the terrain fell away to the north before rising at the approach to Turton Track.

74 That leads to the judge's consideration of the experiences of a number of the protestors traversing the bush generally and between SSP and Turton Track during SSP week and, in particular, their perceptions of the difficulty of the journey.

75 The largest group of those witnesses were protestors who made journeys through the bush during SSP week without reported difficulty and without being detected by loggers:**

1. Kennerson and Donato on Tuesday made a journey for about one kilometre through the bush to the north of SSP track parallel to SRR; they then journeyed back together;

2. McFadzean, Kennerson and Donato on Tuesday made a journey for about one kilometre through the bush to the north of SSP track parallel to the SRR; Donato then journeyed alone through the bush back to SSP camp;

3. Greig, Fowkes, Douglas and Jaskierniak made a journey on Tuesday for about 1.5 kilometres from SSP camp to Turton Track;

4. Greig, Fowkes and Gross made a journey on Tuesday from Turton Track to SSP camp;

5. Dwan explored the bush on the Monday to the north of SSP track;

6. Dwan went into the bush during the Monday for a rest;

7. Dwan explored the bush on the Monday to the south of SSP track;

8. Dwan entered the bush to the north of SSP track on the Tuesday and met Flannigan;

9. Dwan entered the bush to the north of SSP track on the Tuesday to explore the area;

10. Dwan explored the bush on the Tuesday to the south of SSP track;

11. Dwan entered the bush and hid to overhear a meeting of loggers on the Thursday;

12. Members of the Gross party, Bill Gross, Sarah Gross and Forrester journeyed through the bush on the Thursday;

13. Lees, Dawson and Kenneson travelled through the coupe into the bush on the Wednesday;

14. Epstein and Jackson walked down SSP track on the Tuesday;

15. Donato entered the bush on several occasions, climbed a tree and made noises;

16. Kenneson entered the bush on one occasion with Donato and made hooting noises.

**76 As against that, there was evidence that the picket extended into the bush to the distance of sight and sound. Molloy also expressed fear in trying to breach the picket. But Calvert said that she had made it plain that if the appellants wished to leave they needed to leave there and then, and Calvert allowed people to leave for OREN and return to the protest camp. The purpose of the loggers' presence was doubtless to contain and intimidate the appellants. But Fowkes gave evidence of traversing the bottom of the forest, Forrester gave evidence that the conditions were dryer than expected and Dwan was uncertain as to whether the chain south of the intersection blocked SRR.

77 Greig and Dwan's evidence was that the terrain was impassable in sections (although the judge noted that Greig's evidence was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the evidence given by Fowkes[106]). Others who walked through the bush described holding onto trees, plant stumps and bushes. Some spoke of difficulty in negotiating the surface of the terrain; it was wet and slippery, not visible in parts, holes were covered, the ground was covered in logs and wire grass and the affected appellants felt a need to tread lightly when traversing through the bush for fear of breaking a bone. They were also looking out for snakes and leeches. There was, however, clear evidence that all of those who tried got through.

78 The judge accepted that the walk was difficult and steep and involved negotiating ground that was not always visible. As his Honour observed:[107]**

It is unnecessary to examine, line by line, the evidence given by the various witnesses. The burden of the evidence was that the journey was difficult, regardless what route was taken. Forrester gave evidence which in my opinion fairly captured the nature of the walk:

It was quite difficult - it was very difficult being not on a formed track and pushing through the scrub wasn't easy. The ground wasn't altogether visible, often we were just kind of finding the way with our feet and we would have to at some points where it was steep, we would have to almost sort of hold from tree to tree, use the trees to support ourselves. We anticipated the walk might takes us - it would take about an hour. In actual fact it took twice that time.

79 The judge, however, was not persuaded that the route was really too demanding for any of the protestors. Indeed, he found on the evidence before him that it would not have taken more than two hours:

Allowing for all the variables, however, it seems very likely to me that the journey should not have occupied in excess of two hours. That was the approximate period which it took the Gross party to make the journey. Theirs was not a journey by direct route. It was a journey made by people of varying ages and of both sexes, people of varying degrees of physical fitness, people wearing backpacks.[108]

As his Honour observed, that view of the matter was confirmed by the evidence given by Molloy:

Molloy's evidence, relevantly, is also compatible with my conclusion that the journey should not have taken more than two hours. His outward trip was made parallel to and not far from SRR. He was then driven east along Turton Track and walked "down through the gully, across the creek, and up onto" SSP Coupe then back to SRR. He marked a map with the journeys that he took. On his account he left at maybe 9 - 10am and was back shortly after lunchtime. His journeys probably occupied less than four hours, that including time spent fossicking about and on Turton Track. He estimated that the walk out to Turton Track took about 50 minutes. Such estimate may well have been accurate. The journeys which Molloy made, were, as I said earlier, made by a fit man with bush knowledge.[109]

80 In the result, the judge concluded, on the basis of his analysis of the evidence of age, physical condition, clothing and footwear and terrain, that for none of the appellants was the bush from SPP track to Turton Track an unreasonable means of egress:[110]

Given the evidence which I have reviewed, and the conclusions which I have already expressed, I am positively persuaded, considering the circumstances of the individual plaintiffs, that for none of them was a journey through the bush from SSP to Turton Track an unreasonable means of egress. It was not unreasonable, I consider, in terms of time, difficulty, or risk to life or limb. The evidence of what was in fact done by people of different ages, of both sexes, of differing levels of fitness and bush knowledge, without any of them suffering anything but the most minor injury, is highly persuasive.

**81 With respect, we agree with his Honour's conclusions. Although the four factors of threat or danger to self, threat or danger to property or the property of others, distance and time and legality are issues that arise in the circumstances of the present case, and are to be considered individually as to their impact, the combined effect is the real point of the exercise. It is important to keep in view the ultimate concern of the tort of false imprisonment, namely, protection against the unlawful total restraint on the liberty and freedom of movement of the plaintiff.[111] In the end, it is a matter of degree in all the prevailing circumstances.[112]

82 As has been seen, the judge carefully considered those matters in his overview and analysis of the experiences of those who left the campsite from time to time.[113] In making that assessment, his Honour had the advantage of observing the witnesses' delivery of their testimony and, importantly, the conduct of a view in order to better comprehend the evidence. In a case such as this, where credit was very much in issue and the nature of the terrain and the local geography were pivotal, the advantage of observation to the trial judge above the clinical and intellectual critique of this court cannot be understated.[114] But that said, we have closely considered the evidence ourselves and are satisfied of the rectitude of his Honour's conclusions.

83 For some people perhaps, it might not be reasonable to expect that they make use of the bush gate. The evidence of those who walked through the bush as to the necessity to hold on, the difficulty of the terrain and its condition, the lack of visibility of holes and the fear of bone breakages, together with the need to lookout for snakes and leeches, suggest that the experience may have been for some both difficult and unpleasant. But the judge was not concerned with just some people. His task was to assess the reasonableness of egress through the bush gate for this group of plaintiffs who it appeared were not unfamiliar with a bush environment and who had chosen to remain in this area of bush as their stamping ground for a protest about logging. We are not persuaded, in the circumstances of this case, that the evidence called for the conclusion that the bush gate for such people should be regarded as an unreasonable means of egress.

84 The appellants argue that, even if the bush track were a reasonable means of egress for some of SSP week, the judge found that it was not reasonable means of egress during the hours of darkness or during inclement weather on the afternoon of Thursday 28 January 1999. It follows, they contend, that the appellants were falsely imprisoned at those times even if not at any other time during the week.

85 We do not agree. As has been seen, false imprisonment is the complete deprivation of liberty although, as we have said, something short of confinement under lock and key may constitute false imprisonment. All that may be required is that the victim be constrained to remain at the will of the wrongdoer.[115] But a mere partial interference with freedom to travel by one route as opposed to another does not compel a person to remain. He or she is free to leave by the other route. Hence as Patterson J put it in Bird v Jones:[116]**

... I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion that, if one man merely obstructs the passage of another in a particular direction, whether by threat of personal violence or otherwise, leaving him at liberty to stay where he is or to go in any other direction if he pleases, he can be said thereby to imprison him. He does him wrong undoubtedly, if there was right to pass in that direction, and would be liable to an action on the case for obstructing the passage, or of assault, if, on the party persisting in going in that direction, he touched his person, or so threatened him as to amount to an assault. But imprisonment is, as I apprehend, a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will, whatever inconvenience it may bring on him.

**86 In this case, as the judge found, the appellants were free to leave the SSP camp via the bush track, and for most of the time that the appellants remained at the SSP camp the bush track was a reasonable means of egress. Accordingly, there was no complete deprivation of their liberty. The appellants were not compelled to go in a given direction against their will. All that occurred was that they were prevented leaving via SRR. Otherwise, they were at liberty to stay where they were or to go as they pleased.

87 It is true that it may not have been safe or reasonable to travel through the bush during inclement weather or at night. But that does not mean that they were imprisoned at those times. Prudence may have dictated that they not make a start until it was light and the weather was clear. But that was up to them. If they missed an opportunity to leave when it was light and clear, they would have to wait for the next such opportunity. But in effect that meant no more than that if they wished to leave at some times as opposed to others, they might be delayed.

88 There may be situations where refusal to allow a person to pass along a particular road or way would be seen as equivalent to overbearing the will of the person. To revert to an example to which we have already referred, if a person were trapped on an island and denied egress over the only bridge to the mainland, the restraint upon his or her liberty might amount to a false imprisonment. But in most situations a refusal to allow a person to pass along a particular road or way is not to be conceived of as amounting to false imprisonment. Such a person may be forced to take another route and thereby suffer some inconvenience, perhaps even substantial inconvenience. But the effect upon liberty, as opposed convenience, would be in most cases de minimis.[117]

89 Presumably, as one moves through the range of possible circumstances from those which clearly do not constitute false imprisonment to those which do, there will come a point at which views may reasonably differ. Some may see the restriction on liberty involved at that point as amounting to false imprisonment, others will take the contrary view. But in this case, as the judge found, the availability of egress through the bush meant that the facts fell well short of such a restriction. And in our view his Honour is not shown to have been in error in coming to that conclusion. For these reasons we see no merit in grounds 1(a) and (b) or 8.**

**90 Under Ground 7 the appellants contend that it was not open to the judge to find that the appellants wished to remain at the campsite until the morning of 29 January 1999 - because it was not pleaded that the appellants voluntarily entered the intersection and remained there despite being invited to leave; and because the invitation to leave was confined to the afternoon of Monday 25 January 1999.

91 We reject that contention. The respondents pleaded in their defence that the appellants were not imprisoned, that they were not prevented from leaving the area of the intersection and that they were not deprived of their liberty.[118] They also averred that the appellants voluntarily entered the area for the purpose of engaging in interference activities and the respondents gave as one of the particulars of that allegation that the appellants established a blockade in the form of a camp. Consistently with the pleadings, counsel for the respondents opened the respondents' case before the judge on the basis that the respondents denied wrongful imprisonment and counsel referred to the presence of police, offers of being permitted to leave which were said to have been made to the appellants by the police and offers of being permitted to leave which were said to have been made to the plaintiffs by Calvert. The respondents also interrogated Greig and he was cross-examined to the effect that, if he had wanted to leave, he had merely to ask the police to facilitate his departure. In addition, the appellants gave extensive evidence in chief and were cross-examined as to what was said to be the difficulties of leaving by the bush. And, finally, in closing addresses, counsel for the respondents submitted that on the evidence the claim in false imprisonment failed because, among other reasons, at least some of the appellants did not wish to leave the area and that McFadzean and possibly others caused the remainder of the appellants to remain.

92 Under Ground 4 it is contended that, if it were open to consider the question, it was not open on the evidence to find that the appellants did not wish to leave the SSP camp until the morning of 29 January 1999. We also reject that contention.

93 The judge decided against false imprisonment on the basis that there were two reasonable means of egress. As his Honour put it:**

No plaintiff has established that he or she was falsely imprisoned during SSP week. Why that is so is substantially explained by conclusions which I have already expressed. There was no false imprisonment at least because there were two means of egress available and neither of them, subject to what follows, was unreasonable from the perspective of any plaintiff. There was a police gate and there was travel through the bush. Further, no plaintiff was falsely imprisoned to the east of the camp in the late afternoon of 28 January because a means of return to the camp was available, which means was not unreasonable from the perspective of any affected plaintiff; and egress from the camp was in turn available.

Concerning a police gate, I add this to what I have already said, first, the same was accessible in the event that it had been requested. Contrary to the evidence of protesters, no request was made. In saying that, I put to one side the requests - if such they could be called - of which Dwan and Ms Dawson gave evidence.

**94 It is, however, implicit in the conclusion that there were means of egress which were not unreasonable 'from the perspective of any plaintiff' that his Honour was not persuaded that the appellants' will was overborne. That implication is borne out by the detail of his Honour's analysis.

95 The judge found that each of the appellants had decided on 25 January to stay and that their intention was to prevent logging work at the SSP coupe on that day and for an indefinite period thereafter.[119] His Honour further concluded that on 26 January the appellants' state of mind (with the possible exception of Jackson) was that they intended to remain,[120] and that subsequent to 26 January the parties as a group intended to stay until the picket was lifted. His Honour further found that although some of the appellants were subsequently disposed to leave, the collegiate spirit and the intention of the group to stay prevailed and:**

that as the week unfolded, reasons to stay accumulated and influenced the protesters to greater or lesser degree; and that in some instances the accumulation of reasons led to a protester having a personal disposition to stay until such time as the picket was lifted.[121]

**96 His Honour then listed as additional reasons to stay that the appellants would never have agreed to sign a personal no-protest agreement in return for the ability to leave long SRR; the intention of the appellants to see the incident through hardened as a result of the actions of the loggers in harassing or annoying them; the willingness of some of them to endure discomfort for what they could characterise as the greater good should not be underestimated; flight in the face of a logger majority would have been highly unpalatable to the appellants; and the appellants knew that they were being championed as the victims of logger imprisonment.[122]

97 It will be recalled that the judge concluded[123] that a person who remains at a particular place for his own reasons, knowing of but uninfluenced by the actions of another, is not falsely imprisoned, if by reason of those actions he could not leave if he chose.[124] His Honour later restated that proposition, which he described[125] as 'a template', and said:**

Further I have concluded that, as a matter of principle, there would not be imprisonment if the plaintiff wished to remain at SSP for his or her own reasons, knowing of but uninfluenced in the decision to remain by the actions of the defendants.[126]

**98 Then in the following paragraph his Honour examined how a plaintiff's choice to stay, influenced by conduct of the defendants, might explain why a means of egress that was reasonably available was not taken. He foreshadowed the relevance of possible findings that amongst a person's 'own reasons' for staying might be a wish to maintain a protest against logging in the SSP coupe, to avoid the stigma of fleeing from loggers, to assist in creating the perception that conservationists were being imprisoned by a group of lawless loggers or to protest against the 'blackmail of having to sign an agreement in any form in order to leave SSP' or a combination of one or more of those reasons.

Quite apart from what any protester may have believed was the unwillingness of the defendants to permit departure along SRR, or any influence upon protesters of what Greig and Fowkes said about leaving through the bush, the circumstances which I have mentioned pertaining to protesters' intentions give some explanation why in fact, and as distinct from what the protesters said in their evidence, the available means of egress were not availed. I do not consider, on the other hand, that it should be concluded that the protesters' intention to stay could be said to fit the template discussed at paragraphs [118] to [121] of these reasons. Even from the afternoon of 25th January, notwithstanding that the dominant considerations in forming the protesters' intentions were those which operated on the Sunday night and Monday morning, other considerations were beginning to intrude.[127]

**100 As has been observed, it is not sufficient in law that an act of a defendant may have contributed to or influenced a plaintiff's decision to remain. In order to be actionable, a defendant's conduct must have overborne the plaintiff's will. His Honour made that plain. Despite his conclusion that the appellant's state of mind did not fit 'the template', it is clear that his Honour was not persuaded that the will of any plaintiff had been overborne by any defendant's conduct or that but for the acts of restraint of the defendant which influenced a plaintiff's determination to remain, any of the plaintiffs other than Jackson wished to leave or sought to exercise their liberty to do so. His Honour did not conclude that the appellants' determination to remain was a coercive consequence of the respondents' acts[128] or was an 'involuntary submission to an implied threat of force'.[129] His conclusion that the bush gate was a reasonable means of egress bespoke the contrary view.[130]

101 Counsel for the appellants submitted that the judge's conclusion ignored or was opposed to evidence given by the appellants that they wanted to do other things during the time they were kept at SSP; that they asked the police to be allowed to leave; and that they asked Calvert to be allowed to leave, and ignored or is opposed to the facts, as the judge found them to be, that Jackson tried to leave on Monday 25 January 1999; that McFadzean tried to leave on the Tuesday 26 January 1999; that further requests were made on behalf of Jackson on the morning of Thursday 28 January 1999, and were not acted on for hours; that McFadzean was taken out on the Thursday, but not permitted to take his own car; and that McFadzean told the police later that day that the appellants did not have freedom.

102 We also reject that submission. In our view it is plain that the judge dealt with all of the evidence to which the appellants refer and his Honour gave a detailed and compelling explanation of why, despite that evidence, he came to the conclusion he did.

103 Beginning with the appellants' evidence as to what they wished to do during the period between 25 and 29 January 1999, the judge noted that:

1. Jackson gave evidence that she was intending to leave in order to have a family reunion which by arrangement was to be held at 5 pm that night at her parents' home. The judge added that Jackson's account was to some extent supported by the evidence of her mother

2. Greig gave evidence that he had been offered a job in a café at Apollo Bay and that he was to have a work trial at 3 pm on 25 January 1999.

3. Dwan's evidence was that he planned to return home that day to water his garden and sheep, and then visit his sick girlfriend in Apollo Bay. He said that he agreed to give Kennerson a lift to SSP Track.

4. Lees said that she intended to head down to Apollo Bay and to visit friends at Glen Aire that afternoon.

5. McFadzean said that he planned to return to Melbourne late that day or early on the Tuesday in order to go to work. McFadzean's diary also showed that he had work appointments that week. But as the judge noted, the Tuesday was a public holiday.

6. Dawson said that she had planned to stay in the Otways for a few days after travelling down from Melbourne with Epstein, being on her way to visit friends in Tasmania.

7. Fowkes said that he intended to pack up and go back to the base camp. He had no intention of remaining at SSP Track.

8. Epstein said that she had planned to stay in the Otways for just a couple of days and had told her parents that she would be back on the Monday. McDonald was aiming to return with her on the Monday.

9. Kennerson said that he went to SSP to say goodbyes. He was only going to be there briefly and then Dwan was going to drive him to Apollo Bay.

10. Garrett said that she was rostered to work on 26 January 1999 at a café in Apollo Bay and that on 25 January 1999 she arranged with Greig that he drive her to Apollo Bay.

11. Neither Bowles nor Colson gave any evidence of their plans.

104 The judge next turned to evidence given by some of the appellants that they asked police to be allowed to go, and his Honour rejected that evidence for these reasons:

1. Whereas it was the appellants' case that the appellants had made multiple requests of the police officers Robinson and Armstrong to be allowed to leave, both of those officers gave evidence that no such requests were made. Johnson had also noted in his diary a remark by McFadzean which expressed a contrary intention on the part of the protesters and Robinson gave evidence of an understanding that the protesters were not leaving.

2. The appellants relied upon a roster to demonstrate their contention that particular police officers were present at times at which appellants alleged that they requested to be allowed to go. But for reasons which his Honour gave, and need not be repeated, the judge rejected the reliability of that document.

3. There was virtually no evidence given about interaction between the protesters and a further police officer, Cooper, who was on site at times throughout the week. The judge noted that the only protester evidence given was conjectural, and wrong - because Cooper was not at SSP intersection on the evening of 25 January 1999 - and there was no evidence that Cooper did not accede to a request to leave.

4. There was evidence of requests to leave having been made to another officer, Van Kempen. Dwan said that he told Van Kempen on the Monday night that he wished to return home. But there was reason to doubt that evidence. Dwan conceded that he was not sure whether he made that remark to Cooper and there was really no evidence that either officer had rejected any such request. Moreover, according to the roster, as well as Johnson's evidence, Van Kempen was not in the area on the Monday evening. Dwan gave evidence of another conversation with Van Kempen, of which the substance was that he asked Van Kempen whether it would be enough to get escorted out by police if 'we smashed a headlight on the police vehicle ...', and Van Kempen said that it would be. But according to Dawson's evidence, Dwan had asked those questions of Tregellas, and Tregellas had replied that he could not do anything. Further, as the judge observed, his perception of Dwan led him to think that, if Dwan had posed such a question to Van Kempen or Cooper, it was likely to have been a question without substance. That view of the matter was supported by the likelihood that if Dwan really were desperate to get out as he claimed, and if Van Kempen had answered the question in the terms alleged, Dwan would surely have smashed the headlight in order to get out. Lees and Epstein gave evidence that Van Kempen told them to go to their side of the banner but, as the judge observed, that evidence evidently referred to an occasion when protesters were playing a game on SRR. The burden of the protesters' evidence with respect to Van Kempen was that he acted sympathetically towards them. According to Lees, he offered on 26 January 1999 to negotiate with Calvert about the ingress of food and water, he told her on 27 January 1999 that Nelson was at the Turton Track intersection, offered to take Nelson money and a list of required supplies on that occasion, and did take such a list. He also brought in food, and on Lees' account protected her from attack by Pearce on 28 January 1999.

5. Dwan also gave evidence in chief of a belief that on 27 January 1999 he and McFadzean, Lees and Bowles had a meeting with Robinson in which Dwan told Robinson that 'we wanted out of there' and that the substance of Robinsons' reply was that the CMFEU and Calvert were in charge and that the police were there simply to keep the peace. Dwan said that he had retorted that the situation was totally unacceptable and that the protesters were finding it hard to understand the position they were in and why the police would not allow the protesters to leave or to have free access up and down the road, which was a public road. According to Dwan, Robinson replied that the situation was similar to the MUA dispute. But when Dwan was cross examined, he retreated to the position that Robinson may have asked them whether they wanted to leave and that from his memory members of the group had not said that they did not wish to leave .

6. McFadzean gave evidence in chief of speaking to Robinson on 27 January 1999:**

I said that the conservationists wanted to leave and could he facilitate us leaving with our vehicles.

His response was that they were to respect the picket, that they were treating this like the MUA dispute and that they wouldn't be facilitating us getting out, but their role was to keep the peace.

I asked Inspector Robinson to prevent the intimidation and harassment that had been occurring over the past few days.

His response was that we could leave through the bush if we wanted to leave.

I said we couldn't leave through the bush and I had attempted to do so and was prevented from doing so, and that loggers were patrolling around our camp to prevent us from doing so. He said that Jane Calvert assured him that there would be no violence perpetrated against us.

When cross-examined, however, McFadzean said that he did not think Robinson asked him whether he was intending to stay. He did not tell Robinson that he (or the protesters) were content to stay. And it was on the Thursday 28 January 1999 that he had asked Robinson to provide sufficient police resources to escort conservationists out of SSP.

**7) Dawson gave evidence of seeing, albeit not participating, in a discussion with Robinson. But the substance of her evidence was that McFadzean had told her that he had negotiated putting up a banner.

8. Bowles gave evidence of speaking with Robinson while Dwan, McFadzean and Fowkes were there. He said that he told Robinson that they were being held against their will and that Robinson said there was nothing he could do about it. According to him, he also asked Robinson was it not against the Geneva Convention and he recalled Dwan asking for more police. Kennerson, who was another protester, gave evidence that he believed he said to a Chief Inspector that: 'I think we stated to him that we did want to leave', and that the man's response had been: 'That he was impartial and this was out of his jurisdiction.' Contrastingly, however, Robinson denied that any protesters had said to him on the occasion of his visit that the protesters wished to leave. He said that:**

To me the focus - it was an industrial dispute, neither party was wanting to leave. I know I haven't recorded it in my diary here but I satisfied myself that they weren't being held against their will....

9) As the judge observed, there was nothing in Robinson's diary entry of the event which suggested that any protesters had asked to leave. To the contrary, the note of Robinson's conversation with the protesters read:

Gavin McFadyen (sic) - protester - re welfare & re resolution issues. Appears that the remaining protesters are wilderness society. Offered to bring all parties together. Offer to be considered by all.

Robinson also gave viva voce evidence of his conversation with the protesters, that:

.... I certainly explained police expectations and I asked them if they wanted to leave. I believe I spoke to them at some length in relation to general welfare issues and general conversation about forest issues I think we also touched on.

10) It was also important, as the judge put it, to place Robinson's evidence about the meeting in context. At the time, Robinson was a Chief Inspector and the Commander in charge of a division based at Camperdown. His responsibilities including Beech Forest, Apollo Bay and Colac. On 25 January he noted in his diary at 1145 hours:

Monitored call re approx 10 protesters at Seaview Ridge and apparently 30 loggers heading that way.

1. According also to his diary, at 1425 hours that day he received a report from one of his officers, Sergeant Merry, that 50-60 loggers, women and children had:

blockaded the Seaview Track (also called SSP) both sides. They [had] officially opened a CFMEU picket line.

He was told by Sergeant Merry that the picket line: 'will not be opened until a safe working environment exists' and that: 'There is a full camp with vehicles blocked in.'

1. Robinson then spoke to John Winter, the Industrial Disputation Officer with Victoria Police, and, on the basis of Winter's advice, Robinson determined that he should 'just wait and see,' and so take no action at that stage.

**13) Robinson's note at 1520 hours on 25 January recorded in part what was to be done: 'Merry to arrange 24 hour/day presence by one member to monitor activities.'

14. Robinson's note at 1910 hours on 25 January recorded a further report from Sergeant Merry although, as the judge observed, it did not disclose the source of Merry's information:**

Loggers will stop people going in and out but will allow food and water. McFadden (sic) (F.O.E.) will follow Oren.

Blockade exists until Oren and F.O.E. (Wilderness Society) give a written undertaking until all ops against Otways coups (sic) ceases.

1. Robinson's note of a conversation which he had with Calvert at 2100 hours on 25 January 1999 then recorded that:

Jane Calvert - offered my services to negotiate a settlement between both organisations. Accepted the offer. Has been talking to Adrian Whitehead. Compromise is possible but it may take a week for the protester movement to get together and agree on same. Calvert to call me again, 26 January. Explained unlawful imprisonment situation to same. She stated that protesters could get around same in the bush but not on the road.

In the judge's view that note was significant for three reasons. It disclosed Robinson's initial offer of his services as a mediator or negotiator between the parties and so revealed his perception that the relationship between the protesters and the loggers was of parties to an industrial dispute. It was an offer which on his account he made to the protesters the next day at his meeting with them. The note also showed Robinson's awareness, and that of Calvert, of the unlawful imprisonment issue (which is to say, the need to take care to avoid falsely imprisoning the protesters). As well, the note said nothing about what the police would have done had there been any request by protesters for police assistance in leaving.

**16) Robinson's note at 1220 hours on 26 January 1999 referred to a discussion which he had with Tipler and Nelson at the Turton Track intersection. In terms it was that: 'Discussed issues and possible compromise.' Robinson said in his oral evidence that he had told Tipler that he was making Victoria Police available to both parties to try to reach a negotiated settlement.

17. Nelson's evidence about that conversation was to the contrary. She said that Tipler denied Robinson's statement that there was a dispute and told Robinson that he should do his duty, clear the road and let people through. But, as the judge observed, Tipler did not give evidence about the conversation and the judge also thought that there was some significance in the fact that that Nelson's version of events was not put to Robinson in cross-examination. In any event, the judge said, he was unable to conclude that Tipler had requested Robinson to free the protesters or that the latter refused.

18. Robinson's diary note of 1605 hours on 26 January 1999 recorded a report from Sergeant Merry that a barrister named Mullaly was: 'Looking to take out a Supreme Court writ re road closure' and that Red Cross had been approached 're protesters starving'. The next note, at 1615 hours that day, recorded a call from a lady who had said that she was: 'concerned about food and water issues as well as the road being blocked.' As the judge construed the latter note, it was evidence of Robinson's appreciation that the caller was on a fishing expedition and, in the judge's view, both notes were evidence that, as of the afternoon of 26 January 1999, Robinson knew that the propriety of police conduct was under scrutiny. It was, therefore, unlikely that Robinson would have denied police assistance to leave SSP intersection if protesters had sought it.

19. Robinson's diary for 28 January 1999 recorded a discussion at 1008 hours with Blakers from Senator Brown's office, in which she had said that she was concerned: 'that protesters unable to leave' and that Robinson: 'Reassured same that this was not the case.' The judge noted that Blakers appeared to be referring to past violence by loggers and raised concern about possible future violence, and in that context about the numbers of police present. That led Robinson to instruct Sergeant Merry to re-attend SSP, confer with Calvert: 're no violence and convey my request that no activities impinge on amenity of protesters unduly - ie: chainsaw noise etc.'

20. Robinson's diary entry at 1250 hours on 28 January 1999 records a report from Sergeant Merry that:**

Turton's [sic] Track is not blocked. All that has happened is that the Foresters have cut off a track that the greens have used to facilitate protester rotation. Protesters are able to leave any time they wish but they will not be allowed in.

The judge observed that the latter part of that report was consistent with Robinson's understanding from the time when he spoke to Calvert on the evening of Monday 25 January 1999 that, putting to one side police assistance, the protesters could leave through the bush.

21) According to Robinson's evidence, the first time that there was any protester complaint about police inaction was when McFadzean telephoned him at 1335 hours on 28 January 1999. Robinson's note of the conversation was that McFadzean said that:

Gavan McFadyen [sic] I was let out. Conjunctavitis [sic].

1. Freedom - it is not the case. People got out via a long treck [sic].

Protesters can leave anytime they wish. If there is a problem, police will facilitate that action.

22) Several further file notes made that afternoon bore upon Robinson's understanding of the protesters' then wishes. Someone - either Sergeant Merry or an unknown female - told him that:

Most would want to stay in support of each other, but especially the girls felt very intimidated.

A diary note at 1420 hours recorded a report from Sergeant Merry that:

Re issues raised by McFadyen [sic]. Stated that when he spoke to the greens at 1330 they all expressed the desire to leave, but felt that they could not (as above).

As the judge found, the import of what Robinson was being told was that there was tension within the protester group. Some of the protesters wished to leave, but they were constrained by a sense of obligation to stay in support of those who wished to remain. That was productive of tension and a note taken of discussions held between the protesters either on the Thursday evening or the Friday morning demonstrated the division of opinion.

1. Robinsons' diary entry at 1450 hours on 28 January was of a conversation between Robinson and the barrister, Mullaly. It read:

If "Tess" [Gross] wants to leave and is prevented from doing so - unlawful imprisonment. Discussed this and other issues including police escort of those who wish to leave. Advised same that I would ensure that all who wanted to leave could do so but that it may take time to get the necessary resources in place.

In viva voce evidence Robinson said that to remove those who wanted to leave he would have needed either a number of police vehicles or maybe the local school bus. He anticipated no difficulty at all in getting the protesters through the picket line.

24) Robinson's diary note of a conversation at 1953 hours on 28 January 1999 referred to the Gross party. It recorded advice from a police officer that:

4 protesters out of the bush have arrived at the camp and now want to be escorted out,

Directed [the police officer] to ascertain circumstances of them being in the bush. If they knowingly walked into the situation they can remain until matter resolved. I am unwilling to divert police resources to cater for this situation.

Later that evening it was reported to Robinson that the newcomers had left after signing an undertaking not to enter the area again and that: 'Other apparently also willing to sign same.'

1. In the result, as the judge concluded, it was apparent that Robinson's notes did not contain any record of a protester saying to Robinson on 26 January 1999 that he or she wished to leave and they did not contain any record that Robinson had received a report from any other police officer of any such request having been made. Further, the first assertion that the protesters were imprisoned was not made until 28 January 1999, by McFadzean, and Robinson's response to McFadzean had been that protesters could leave any time they wished and that the police would facilitate them doing so. Furthermore, the advice given to Robinson by the police officer on site was that, the question of the protesters leaving having been taken up with them later that day, an ambivalent response had been given. And that remained the situation as reported to Robinson on the morning of Friday 29 January 1999. Robinson's notes record a report from Sergeant Hill at 0745 hours on that day that a Constable Elliott had reported that

Some [protesters] may wish to leave but the[y] won't until all want to leave.

and also that Senior Constable Cole, who was then at SSP, had reported to Robinson that he had been told that:

they [the protesters] will rise in their own good time, have a meeting then decide what they want to do.

In all, apart from McFadzean's assertion of 28 January 1999, among the very many things which were said and reported to Robinson through the week from 26 to 29 January 1999, there was no allegation of imprisonment, no request to leave and no request for police assistance to leave.

**26) The judge also considered at length and in detail the cross examination of Robinson concerning the police approach to the situation; his understanding of the means whereby the protesters could leave through the bush, via Turton Track; whether he had indeed asked protesters during his meeting with them on 26 January 1999 whether they wished to leave; his impression that the protesters wanted to stay; the means which he might have used to take protesters out if they had expressed the wish to leave - he said he would have preferred to use a bus because logistically it would have made it far easier to transport them; the fact that the police were not about 'breaking the picket line itself, in other words, forcing a confrontation'; the advice which he had received about the arrival of the Gross party at SSP and why he had taken the stance that he was not prepared to devote police resources to the situation if they had gone in voluntarily; and whether that derogated from his expressed position about the other protesters.

27. On the basis of that assessment the judge found that Robinson was a reliable witness who attempted to give a true account of his involvement in the affair. His Honour accepted Robinsons' evidence that in January 1999 he believed, on the basis of what protesters said to him at their meeting, that they intended to stay. Contrastingly, his Honour rejected the appellants' evidence on the points, which his Honour noted was often inconsistent as between the appellants. The judge found that Robinson did not ask the protesters why they intended to stay - Robinsons' belief was that their intention was unrelated to any requirement that the protesters, OREN or TWS sign an agreement not to protest - and he did not discuss with the protesters on 26 January 1999 the various alternative means that the police could take to assist them to leave. But it was apparent that the occasion for him to do so did not arise.

28. The judge found that it was likely that Robinson told the protesters that the police would be adopting an impartial, neutral position, and in truth that was what he intended the police position should be. But, as the judge observed, that said nothing about what the police would do if the protesters requested assistance in leaving SSP intersection. The judge found that none of the protesters said anything to Robinson about imprisonment until McFadzean spoke of the subject on 28 January 1999 - and Robinson regarded that as part of the tactics of the dispute - Robinson did not receive any report of a protester saying such a thing. Robinson would have been prepared, however, to use police resources to remove the protesters from SSP had any request been brought to his attention, and such action would have been achievable, and the incident involving the Gross party did not tell to the contrary. Robinson did not give any instructions to his subordinates that the police should assist protesters to leave if requested to do so. But he believed that Sergeant Merry, particularly, knew that to be the situation. And the police roster emphasised at several points the need for impartiality on the part of the police; something which was compatible with a policy of refraining from active intervention, if that were possible, and of attempting to mediate what Robinson perceived to be the dispute which underlay the events at SSP. The judge found that Robinson believed at all times during SSP week that it was open to protesters to leave through the bush.

105 The judge next considered the evidence given by protesters about conversations with, and conduct of, Gurrie and Tregellas.

1. Dealing first with Gurrie, the judge found that apart from what seemed to have been an unremarkable, if unsympathetic, remark allegedly made on the Sunday evening, Greig was the only person who gave evidence of making a specific request to Gurrie for assistance in leaving. But the judge was not inclined to accept that evidence because, as his Honour assessed it, Greig gave imagined or exaggerated accounts about many things which happened during SSP week and because his evidence with respect to a conversation with Gurrie on the Monday afternoon was intimately bound up with his account of what happened in the course of that afternoon. Accordingly, as it appeared to the judge, it would have been unrealistic to segment out a fraction of that account, which he did not otherwise accept, and consider it probable. Greig also gave evidence of a conversation which he said took place probably on the Tuesday. But the judge rejected that evidence too on the basis that if such a request had been made it was probable that it would have reported it directly or indirectly to Robinson and it was not.

2. So far as Tregellas was concerned, there was evidence given by Greig, Gross, Lees, McFadzean, Dawson and Epstein. From that evidence the judge concluded that it was likely that protesters variously told Tregellas that they feared for their safety and that the loggers were making too much noise, and so on. The judge also found that it was possible that Tregellas became fed up by the frequency of the complaints and as a result did not answer a particular call for him to attend the appellants' camp. But equally the judge found it was not at all likely that any protesters requested Tregellas' assistance to leave in the middle of the night and, if any did so, it was understandable that he might not have taken it seriously.

106 Finally, on this aspect of the matter, the judge dealt with the evidence given by the appellants of the requests which they said they made of Calvert to be permitted to leave; that Jackson tried to leave on the Monday; that McFadzean, tried to leave on the Tuesday; that further requests to leave were made on behalf of Jackson on the Thursday, and were not acted on for hours; that McFadzean was taken out on the Thursday, but not permitted to take his own car; and that McFadzean told the police later that day that the appellants did not have freedom.

107 Relevantly, his Honour's consideration of that evidence began with the observation that despite what some of the appellants said in evidence about their wish to leave on 25 January 1999, there were a number of factors which led him to the view that (with the exception of Garrett, who had no vehicle of her own), it was highly likely that each of the protesters at the camp on the morning of 25 January 1999 had decided to stay; and that their intention, individually, was to preclude work at SSP coupe for an indefinite period. Those factors were that:

1. The protesters set up camp at the mouth of SSP Track on 24 January 1999 in order to preclude work at SSP coupe

2. None of the protesters who gave evidence of wishing to leave, in fact left the vicinity of SSP Track in the period until about midday on 25 January 1999. As the judge said, that assumed particular significance once it was understood that the vehicles of Greig and Donato were damaged by the loggers in the course of the Sunday night. As the judge put it, if the protesters really feared logger violence as they claimed, the compounding effect of that incident on the events of the Sunday would have been likely to cause the protesters to leave, unless they had a stronger reason to stay. The likely reason to stay was that they could close down Chris Wheeler's coupe, and thus at the one time both strike a blow against 'illegal logging' and demonstrate that they would not be intimidated.

3. Although McFadzean gave an account of why he went to the Otways on 24 January 1999, he did not give a satisfactory explanation of why, given what had happened, and if the protesters wanted to leave, he did not counsel them to leave.

4. On a series of occasions on the morning of 25 January 1999, and again after the arrival of the loggers' party, McFadzean told different people, in effect, that there would be no work at the coupe at least on that day.

5. None of the identified protester vehicles left or attempted to leave the intersection either before or after the initial conversations between Calvert and protesters and none of the identified protesters, excepting on their accounts Jackson and Greig, and McFadzean on 26 January 1999, attempt to leave on foot via SRR.

108 The judge turned then to the afternoon of 25 January 1999, and found that there had been the five meetings between the protesters and Calvert of the respondents in which the following occurred:

1. During the first meeting, Calvert told the protesters with whom she spoke that the she intended to set up a union authorised picket and that when it was set up people could not cross it. 'So if you want to go, go now.'[131]

2. During the second meeting, which came about after some of the protesters had gone skipping and dancing up SRR towards Calvert, Calvert mainly spoke to Douglas and told her if she went through the picket she could not come back. In the course of that conversation, Jackson said: 'No work today, I think that's a win for us' and Kennerson said: 'I don't think the road will stop us.' [132]

3. During the third meeting, Calvert told the protesters that there was a picket line and that if a person went out he or she could not come back. She said that loggers were sick of working in an unsafe workplace.[133] She also explained that there were four aspects of the union protocol and there were a number of statements made to the effect that there would be no violence. Dwan proposed to Calvert that he wanted to be free to drive up and down SRR in his vehicle and asked whether he was to be prevented Calvert replied: 'It's a picket mate', and shook her head.[134] Calvert repeated that: 'if you want to go, you don't come back, but if you want to stay and be part of this magnificent protest, then you can stay.' She also said: 'Get together anyone who wants to go, grab me and I will arrange it'.[135]

4. In the fourth meeting which took place not long after the third, Calvert spoke to McFadzean with Dwan present. McFadzean to told her that he had been elected to speak on behalf of the group and that if a decision to go out were made to leave, it would be a group decision; and that such a decision would have implications for OREN and TWS, for which reason the group would have to consult with them.[136]

5. After McFadzean had spoken to the protesters, there was a fifth meeting. McFadzean and Lees approached Calvert. Deriving from the fourth meeting, Lees asked whether there could be an agreement with OREN that there be no more protests that summer, and if there could be such an agreement, the protesters could go. McFadzean said that it would be necessary to consult with OREN and TWS. Protesters would need to leave. There was discussion about how many should be able to leave, and whether replacements could come in. Her position was that a person could leave for discussions, and that such person could thereafter return. It was also agreed that there should be separate areas for loggers and protesters.

109 Based on that evidence the judge concluded that throughout 25 January 1999 the principal reasons which actuated the protesters to remain were to disrupt logging operations in the SSP coupe, notwithstanding that the events which occurred on the afternoon of 25 January 1999 probably caused particular protesters to believe that the respondents would not allow them to leave along SRR.[137]

110 Moving forward then to 26 January 1999, the judge found on the basis of competing evidence that none of the protesters told the police who were present on that day that they wished to leave. Greig and Fowkes had that day walked out through the bush to Turton Track and then to the Mt Sabine base camp for the principal reason, as the judge found, of enabling them to contact OREN. In the judge's view that was not inconsistent with an intention on the part of the protesters to remain at SSP camp at that time for reasons other than that they were or believed themselves to be imprisoned.

111 McFadzean had also attempted to leave and the judge said that it was possible that his purpose was to achieve the release of the protesters from imprisonment. But in the judge's view that was unlikely in light of McFadzean's failure to say anything to Robinson about imprisonment. The more likely explanation was that McFadzean wished to discuss the matter with OREN representatives - since McFadzean knew that Calvert was seeking some kind of no-protest agreement from the protesters and he had drawn a link between any such agreements and OREN's position - and McFadzean wished take steps, with or without OREN, to maximise the political impact of an alleged imprisonment of protesters by loggers.[138] Thus, in the opinion of the judge, McFadzeans' attempt to leave on 26 January 1999 was not inconsistent with an intention on the part of the protesters including McFadzean to remain at SSP intersection at that time.[139]

112 Finally, the judge analysed the evidence concerning events between 26 and 29 January 1999 in order to reach the conclusions which we have set out above at paragraphs [95] to [99].

113 It follows in our opinion that it was open to the judge to take the view, as he did, that the claims in false imprisonment were not made out. We agree with his Honour's conclusion.**

**114 The judge began his consideration of the claim in public nuisance by reference to established principles. His Honour observed that:

a) Generally, speaking, an interference upon the free and uninterrupted use of a public road by members of the public which interference is substantial and unreasonable, may confer a cause of action for public nuisance upon an affected private individual.

b) Whether it does will depend upon whether the private individual can show that he or she has incurred some 'particular' or 'special' damage over and above the ordinary inconvenience or annoyance suffered by the public at large.

c) There is a modern tendency to reject the distinction between difference in type and difference in degree and to allow recovery if the obstruction causes more than mere infringement of a theoretical right which the plaintiff shares with every one else.

d) Recoverable damages may consist of 'proved general damage, for example, inconvenience and delay...provided that it is substantial , direct and appreciably greater in degree than any suffered by the general public.'

e) Aggravated or exemplary damages may be awarded in an appropriate case.**

It is not suggested that there is any fault or inadequacy in his Honour's statement of the principles.

115 The judge turned next to paragraph 43 of the Statement of Claim, which was in these terms:

1. Further, between 25 January and 29 January 1999 the Defendants and each of them, acting in concert with each other and with the other loggers, placed themselves, their vehicles, banners and other physical objects across Seaview Ridge Road at a short distance on either side of the intersection with the SSP Track so as to create an obstruction to persons, such as the Plaintiffs, using the said road, and thereby constituted a public nuisance.

The Plaintiffs refer to and repeat the particulars to paragraph 5 hereof.

**116 His Honour observed[140] that the plea so raised by paragraph 43 was in terms not sustainable, since on no possible view of the evidence did the defendants, other loggers, vehicles, banners or other objects or any combination of them create a continuous obstruction across SRR to the north and south of SSP intersection and a short distance therefrom between 25 and 29 January 1999.

117 Concentrating then on the area to which paragraph 43 of the Statement of Claim referred, the judge analysed the evidence of the extent to which the respondents had obstructed SRR and made the following findings of fact about it:

a) The respondents so placed vehicles and other inanimate objects that at times on 25 January 1999 and probably at times on 26 January 1999 and possibly on occasion thereafter that SRR was physically obstructed; on one occasion completely and on other occasions at least partially.[141]

b) It would have been necessary to move one or more of those vehicles to enable the plaintiffs or anyone else to proceed by vehicle along SRR on those occasions.[142]

c) One or more of the vehicles did in fact have to be moved to enable police vehicles to move up and down SRR as required and to enable journalists and a television crew to attend the intersection on 26 and 27 January 1999.[143]

d) No member of the general public gave evidence, however, that his or her vehicle had been impeded on any occasion between 25 January 1999 and 29 January 1999 from passing or repassing along SRR.[144]

e) One of the appellants, Dwan, said to Calvert that he wanted to be free to drive his vehicle up and down SRR and she replied with the words 'It's a picket mate' and shook her head.[145]

f) The respondents' actions caused 'particular protesters' to believe that the respondents would not allow them to leave along SRR.[146]

g) None of the appellants, however, actually attempted to drive from the SSP intersection along SRR.[147]

h) Equally, none of the plaintiffs except Jackson actually attempted to walk from SSP intersection along SRR.

118 On the basis of those findings, the judge concluded that he was not satisfied that any of the appellants apart from Jackson and Nelson were obstructed from walking or driving along SRR because, although the picket was 'an act of persuasion' (which is to say it was intended to and did persuade the appellants not to pass by foot or vehicle along SRR), none of the appellants (apart from Jackson, Nelson and McFadzean) attempted to pass by foot and none of the appellants attempted to pass by vehicle until 29 January 1999 when the picket was removed. As the judge expressed his conclusion:**

Obstruction is a fact. Obstruction is not the same thing as threatened obstruction, even if the threat is likely to be carried out. Still less is it obstruction if the threat would not have been carried out, or if and insofar as the reasons for persons not seeking to pass along a public road are discrete from such threat. In my opinion, the circumstances do not enable a conclusion that the plaintiffs' vehicles, as distinct from the vehicles of the public generally, were obstructed by loggers' vehicles, or by any other inanimate objects in the vicinity of SSP Track, from passage along SRR during SSP week. Neither do I consider that the presence of the defendants, their families and other loggers in the vicinity of SSP Track obstructed the passage of the plaintiffs' vehicles along SRR during that period.

I go to the question whether the presence of the defendants, their families and other loggers obstructed pedestrian passage along SRR in the vicinity of SSP Track in the course of the week. Putting the incidents involving Ms Jackson and Ms Nelson to one side for the moment, I consider that there was no such obstruction at any time.

Other than in the case of Ms Nelson, no member of the general public was shown to have been obstructed in attempting to pass along SRR on foot in the vicinity of SSP Track. Next, whilst it is the case that there were varying numbers of loggers and their families in the vicinity of the intersection during the week, the evidence did not show that they constituted a physical obstruction to passage. Further, for one or more of the reasons which I have earlier discussed, excepting Ms Jackson no plaintiff attempted such passage.

Pausing for a moment, the point thus far reached is that, speaking of the entirety of SSP week, and putting the incidents involving Ms Jackson and Ms Nelson to one side for the moment, there is no evidence that any vehicles or persons on foot were in fact obstructed from passing along SRR, even fleetingly, by the presence near SSP Track of inanimate objects; or by the presence of the defendants, their families, and other loggers. That is so notwithstanding that, at times, loggers' vehicles were parked wholly or partly on SRR, on one occasion completely blocked the road, and on other occasions constituted at least a partial obstruction thereof.

**119 The appellants contend that the judge's finding on the ultimate fact of obstruction is against the primary facts as he found them to be. In other words, given his Honour's findings as to the number of respondents who were on the road, and the vehicles and other equipment which the respondents placed on or near the road, his Honour was bound to conclude that there was significant obstruction of the road. Alternatively, the appellants say that, even if the extent of the obstruction was no more than the judge held it to be, the fact that 'at times, loggers' vehicles were parked wholly or partly on SRR, on one occasion completely blocked the road, and on other occasions constituted at least a partial obstruction thereof' meant that respondent's activities on the road to some extent hindered the free passage of the public along the road, and in the appellants' submission that was enough at law to constitute a public nuisance.

120 We do not think that there is any force in the first point. The judge considered the evidence at length and in precise detail, and nothing which the appellants have said about his Honour's analysis persuades us that his conclusion on the facts was erroneous. It appears to us, however, the appellants' alternative contention is in principle correct. On the facts as found, it is in our view inevitable that passage up and down SRR was hindered to the point of obstruction.

121 The respondents argue, to the contrary, that it was open to the judge to conclude that there was no obstruction because it was not shown that the appellants attempted to pass or repass along the road during the relevant time, or alternatively on the basis that such if any hindrance as there may have been was not shown to have rendered it physically impossible for the appellants to pass had they wished to do so.

122 We do not agree. As we say, we see no reason to doubt the judge's findings of fact, and therefore we proceed upon the basis that it was not established that any appellant or other member of the public attempted passage or was hindered in the endeavour. But obstruction may be proved without proof that a member of the public was in fact obstructed. As Griffith CJ put it in Haywood v Mumford, the question is simply whether what was done amounted to an obstruction:**

...it is not necessary that anybody should in fact be passing down the street while the obstruction is there. The question is whether the obstruction is there? As I pointed out in argument, it would be a very singular thing if, in the case of a log laid across a foot way, the person who put it there could be allowed to say that there was no obstruction because nobody fell over the log. In my opinion the conviction was right, and upon the facts the magistrate could not have come to any other conclusion. [148]

**123 Equally, it is clear that an obstruction need not be total in order to amount to a nuisance.[149] While the action for false imprisonment could not be maintained in Bird v Jones,[150] Patteson J considered that an obstruction which prevented the plaintiff from proceeding in one particular direction on the public highway undoubtedly gave rise to an action on the case for obstructing the passage.[151] Fullagar J took a similar view in Williams v Hursey.[152]

124 More generally, any unreasonable or excessive use of a highway or activity on or near the highway which renders the highway less commodious to the public is enough to constitute a nuisance.[153] So, for example, it is a nuisance to place logs on a public highway though it may remain possible for the public to steer a course around the logs; or for a merchant continuously to keep vans before the door of his shop in a fashion that practically appropriates part of the roadway for his business; or for a theatre to allow stationary crowds of patrons to block a substantial part of the street as they enter or exit the theatre;[154] or to maintain a picket with a view to compelling persons not to do acts which it is lawful to do.[155]

125 Of course, since every member of the public is entitled to pass and repass along a public road, the rights of each member of the public so to pass are subject to such obstacles, congestion and inconvenience as may be caused by the exercise by other members of the public of their rights to pass and repass along the road.[156] Additionally, each member of the public has the right to reasonable use of the road for such other purposes as it is usual to use a highway, such as stopping on lawful occasions for the purpose of taking up and putting down passengers and effecting repairs.[157] The right of each member of the public to pass and repass is accordingly further diminished. There are also many inconveniences to public use of the highway for which there is no legal remedy. Construction or renovation of buildings abutting the highway and the loading or unloading of vehicles are examples. But unreasonable or excessive use of a public road is a nuisance irrespective of any wrongful guilty intent and an assembly of persons on a public road is unreasonable and excessive if it blocks a considerable part of the surface.[158]

126 Counsel for the respondents faintly suggested that the respondents' use of the road was reasonable because it was in furtherance of an industrial picket. We reject that suggestion. Processions may use a public road for passage on lawful occasions for lawful objects provided that the use is reasonable. But a static demonstration or picket is of a different order. A picket line which threatens obstruction of the thoroughfare and besetting of those who wish to travel on the roadway so as to cause persons to hesitate through fear to proceed constitutes an unreasonable obstruction amounting to a public nuisance[159] and an interference with private rights.[160] It amounts to an unreasonable restriction upon the right of an individual to free movement on a roadway. A public road is primarily for free passage of the public for all reasonable purposes. An assembly of persons on a public road which significantly affects free passage is in its nature irreconcilable with the right of free passage, and therefore a public nuisance.[161] It is also a summary offence.[162]

127 Counsel for the respondents contended that, even if that were so, the appellants were constrained by their pleadings to a case in public nuisance which alleged the complete blockage of the road by the respondents, and their vehicles and their equipment, and that the appellants failed in proof of that case.

128 We reject that contention too. As pleaded, the case in public nuisance was as follows:**

Further, between 25 January and 29 January 1999 the Defendants and each of them, acting in concert with each other and with the other loggers, placed themselves, their vehicles, banners and other physical objects across Seaview Ridge Road at a short distance on either side of the intersection with the SSP Track so as to create an obstruction to persons, such as the Plaintiffs, using the said road, and thereby constituted a public nuisance.

The Plaintiffs refer to and repeat the particulars to paragraph 5 hereof.

That does not appear to us to limit the claim to an allegation that the nuisance was constituted by a complete blockage of the road. The pleading alleges an obstruction, and that is the orthodox form of pleading a public nuisance the result of any unreasonable or excessive use of a highway which renders a highway less commodious to the public.[163] Additionally, the particulars given under paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim extend to all of the activities of the respondents throughout the week and, although the judge said that [164] the particulars cannot be relied upon to expand the scope of the allegation made in the body of paragraph 43, they do inform the sense in which the expression 'obstruction' is employed in the substantive pleading. Admittedly, some of the particulars do not relate to public nuisance. But the following at least appear to be relevant:

(c) On the afternoon of Monday, 25 January 1999, the Defendants accompanied by approximately sixty other loggers arrived at the campsite and set up blockades preventing the Plaintiffs and other protesters from leaving the campsite.

(d) Shortly thereafter the Second Defendant announced to the Plaintiffs that she was the State Secretary of the Forestry Division of the First Defendant. She stated that the blockades were official union picket lines set up by the First Defendant and that the Plaintiffs and other protesters could not breach the picket line. She said that the picket line had been formed for health and safety reasons and that no one could leave until the First Defendant's health and safety officer arrived.

(e) The Third Plaintiff and one of the other protesters, Dominik Jaskierniak ("Jaskierniak") attempted to leave through the blockades set up by the Defendants. Their passage was blocked by the Defendants and/or other loggers, who formed blockades across the road and adjacent clearing ("the blockade").

(i) During the afternoon of 25 January 1999, the Second Defendant told the Plaintiffs that they and the other protesters would not be released unless they agreed in writing for themselves and on behalf of the Otway Ranges Environment Network ("OREN") and the Wilderness Society ("TWS"), to cease all environmental protests in the Otways ("the Proposed agreement").

129 We observe as well that the respondents' counsel does not appear to have been in any doubt at trial that what was alleged was that the nuisance was caused by everything which the respondents did on or near the highway which had the effect of obstructing passage along it. The following exchange between counsel and the judge in the course of final address is sufficient to make the point:

[COUNSEL]: What we are seeking to answer is the prospect that what might be said is given the breadth of the particular subjoined to paragraph 5 that somehow other matters like, for example, noise and other disturbance - - -

[COUNSEL]: Your Honour, we say there's no evidence that there was anything other than temporary congestion and we say that's apparent on the evidence. We have conceded it from early on, your Honour.

**130 Allowing, however, that the respondents sufficiently obstructed SRR as to cause a public nuisance, it remains to determine whether the appellants had a right of action in respect of that public nuisance.[165]

131 As the judge observed, an injury for public nuisance is not actionable unless it be the 'direct, necessary, natural and immediate consequence of the wrongful act'.[166] Consequently, as Lord Hanworth MR and Lawrence LJ both held in Harper, a private individual cannot maintain an action in respect of wrongful obstruction of the highway unless the individual has suffered particular substantial injury beyond that suffered in common by all other members of the public affected by the nuisance.[167] A claimant may establish 'particular' damage where he or she has suffered injury or inconvenience which is a direct and not merely consequential result of the public nuisance and is of a substantial character so as to distinguish it from the inconvenience suffered by the public at large.[168] And, as Sholl J explains in Walsh v Ervin, 'particular damage' is not limited to 'special damage' in the sense of actual pecuniary loss.[169] But such general damage, usually in the form of inconvenience and delay, must be appreciably greater in degree than that suffered by the general public[170] (although the fact that there may be numerous plaintiffs who may have suffered the same or similar 'particular' damage will not disqualify them from bringing the action).

132 In accordance with those principles the judge stated correctly that the plaintiffs would have no such right of action in respect of a public nuisance unless he or she sustained particular substantial and direct damage beyond the general inconvenience and injury suffered by the public.[171] His Honour also recognised that damages for inconvenience and delay were not recoverable[172] unless the inconvenience and delay were substantial and appreciably greater in degree than that suffered by the general public.[173]

133 On the facts as found, therefore, the claims in public nuisance were bound to fail. The appellant's case at trial was that they had suffered particular damage in the form of the physical and psychological injuries for which they claimed damages for false imprisonment. They further alleged that they were entitled to recover the same measure of damages under each heading (although of course conceding that they were not entitled to double recovery). But with the exception of Jackson, Lees, Dawson, Greig and Colson, the judge was not satisfied that any of the appellants had suffered the physical or psychological injuries which they claimed, and it is not now suggested that his Honour was wrong to take that view.

134 Counsel for the appellants argued that it was open to this court to allow something by way of general damages for the delay and loss of amenity which it was said they had endured during the picket. We do not think that is so.

135 If the appellants had walked out through the bush rather than remaining at the SSP camp, it may be that they would have been able to establish that they suffered particular damage as a result of having to walk. But it will be recalled that most did not attempt the walk and those that walked out did not appear to have suffered any damage.

136 It may be too that, if the appellants had wished to leave via SRR but stayed because of the obstruction of the SRR, they would have been entitled to recover some amount of damage for particular loss or inconvenience suffered as a result of not being able to pass down the SRR.[174] But it is axiomatic that particular damage will not be made out if it was not the claimant's intent to travel on that portion of the highway were it not for the obstruction. Of course, that is not to say that the claimant must attempt to pass through the obstruction. It would be sufficient if the claimant established the requisite intent and a knowledge that the obstruction was present and would remain so during such time as the claimant wished to travel on that portion of the highway.[175] But, as has been seen, the judge found that they wished to remain.

137 It may perhaps also be that, if their only reasons for wishing to remain were that they were denied passage along SRR and were not prepared to take the risk of walking through the bush, they would have been entitled to recover some amount of damage for the deprivations and harassment to which they were subjected at the SSP camp. Arguably, their exposure to such deprivations and harassment would have been within the scope of risk created by the denial of access along SRR. Given, however, the judge's finding that the appellants wished to remain for a variety of reasons - not least to frustrate logging operations at the SSP coupe - the common sense factual view of the matter was that the deprivations and harassment to which they were subject were caused by their wish to remain. In the words of the Full Court in Harvey v St Arnaud:**

The damages claimed by the [appellants] are too remote; they do not naturally flow from the unlawful act or omission of the [respondents]; they are rather the result of the injudicious act of the [appellants] in [staying at SPP].[176]

**138 Possibly, too, if there had been more evidence on the point, it would have been open to apportion any damage suffered as a result of the deprivations of the camp as between damage caused by the denial of access via SRR and damage caused by the decision to stay. But in the way in which the appellants' case was presented, that was not possible. The appellants' contention at trial was that they were entitled to recover under the head of public nuisance all of the damages which they alleged that they were entitled to recover under the head of false imprisonment.[177] In effect, their approach was as basic as that, because of the denial of access, they were imprisoned and, because they were imprisoned, everything which they suffered while imprisoned was the result of being denied access.

139 If follows in our view that the judge was right to refuse the appellants claims for damages for public nuisance.**

**140 We do not consider that the judge erred in law or alternatively in the exercise of discretion, in determining not to award exemplary damages in respect of the tortious conduct which he found in respect of the appellants: Ms Lees,[178] Ms Jackson,[179] Ms Gross,[180] Ms Greig,[181] Ms Colson[182] and Ms Dawson.[183]

141 In his Honour's reasons, the judge carefully set out the principles by which he was guided in his assessment of the appropriateness of an award of exemplary damages.[184] Citing the leading authorities, his Honour distinguished between compensatory and exemplary damages, observing that the latter is concerned with conduct of the defendant which, being in contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's rights, warrants punishment and deterrence. The judge also noted that it is not always easy to differentiate between aggravated and exemplary damages.[185] His Honour went on to observe that an award of aggravated damages has a punitive element,[186] and that the extent to which the defendant has been adequately punished by an award of compensatory damages (which may include aggravated damages) is a relevant factor in considering exemplary damages.[187] The appellants did not challenge the correctness of this part of his Honours' judgment, either in written or in oral submissions.

142 Ms Jackson was awarded $30 000 in respect of her Wilkinson v Downton claim, including $10 000 in aggravated damages, but was refused an award of exemplary damages. In explaining the award of damages to Ms Jackson the judge said:**

To my mind, aggravated damages should be awarded, and in the amount specified, most particularly because the harm which was inflicted by the offending conduct was probably made the worse, from the plaintiff's perspective, by the way in which the defendants conducted themselves in inflicting that harm. Regardless of their purpose, what the defendants did in that connection showed little regard for the plaintiffs, specifically Ms Jackson. I have not been at all persuaded, however, given consideration of all of the circumstances, that an award of exemplary damages should be made. Other matters aside, I am well satisfied that the amount of $30,000 is adequate to punish the defendants for their conduct (which for this purpose I assume was outrageous), to mark the Court's disapproval of such conduct, and to deter its repetition.[188]

**143 As is apparent, the judge in this passage was applying the principles he had earlier set out.[189] The compensation awarded to Ms Dawson, Ms Colson and Ms Greig also included an amount in respect of aggravated damages. In rejecting the claims of those appellants for exemplary damages, the judge referred back to what he had said in relation to Ms Jackson's claim. The judge considered that Ms Lees should be awarded the same damages as Ms Jackson, including the same amount in respect of aggravated damages. Although his Honour did not expressly say so, we infer that the judge rejected Ms Lees' exemplary damages claim for the same reasons as he rejected Ms Jackson's. In the case of Ms Goss, an amount of $1000 was awarded for a battery committed by Ms Calvert in grabbing her arm. In light of the judge's finding that the physical contact made by Ms Calvert was 'fleeting and essentially inconsequential',[190] there is no basis to reconsider on appeal his Honour's refusal to award exemplary damages in respect of this battery.

144 No specific error of principle has been identified by the appellants and their submissions do not engage with his Honour's reasoning, the essence of which is that the compensatory damages awarded to the successful plaintiffs, which in most cases included an amount in respect of aggravated damages, were sufficient to punish the defendants. Rather, those submissions drew the Court's attention to the facts which the appellants said supported the conclusion that the respondents' tortious conduct was deliberate and in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights. In our view, this submission amounted to an invitation to this Court to substitute its own view on the question of exemplary damages for that of the trial judge.

145 An award of exemplary damages involves the exercise of a discretion. In Gray v Motor Accident Commission,[191] Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ commented that it 'is of little assistance' to describe the award of exemplary damages as a discretion to be exercised judicially.[192] But the fact that the remedy is discretionary remains of significance for the role of an appellate Court in reviewing a decision with respect to exemplary damages

146 In determining whether the trial judge should have made such an award, an appellate Court must pay due regard to the advantages enjoyed by the trial judge. In Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Popovic,[193] this Court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal against the refusal of a trial judge to award exemplary damages in a defamation case. Gillard AJA said:**

The learned trial judge had the advantage of observing the case as it progressed, seeing and hearing the witnesses and making an assessment of the conduct of the parties in the context of all the facts. In the end he had to make a judgment as to whether or not the conduct amounted to a contumelious disregard of [the plaintiff's] rights and whether an award of exemplary damages was appropriate in the circumstances ... [I]t was a matter for the judge who had to make a value judgment [sic] and whilst some may have different views, it could not be said that his Honour erred in reaching the conclusion that the circumstances did not warrant an award of exemplary damages.[194]

147 In our view those comments are readily applicable to this case. As the judge recognised, resolving the claim for exemplary damages required consideration of all the circumstances. Having regard to the advantages enjoyed by his Honour in undertaking this task, we are not persuaded that any basis has been made out to disturb his Honour's decision with respect to exemplary damages.

**148 The appellants primary challenge to the costs orders was advanced upon the assumption that the conclusions of fact and law reached by the trial judge were correct. In short it was submitted that if those conclusions were correct, the order for costs that was made against the successful plaintiffs was not reasonably open.

149 His Honour delivered separate reasons in support of the costs orders he made.[195] The judge ordered the appellants to pay 40% of the respondent's costs, and apportioned individual liability for those costs between the appellants.[196] The appellants challenged the costs orders which were made against the successful plaintiffs on the grounds that his Honour:

• failed to apply the fundamental principle that a plaintiff should be indemnified for all expenditure reasonably and properly incurred in obtaining judgment;[197]

• failed to give sufficient weight to that fact that the damages awarded to the successful plaintiffs all exceeded the respondents' offers of compromise and final Calderbank offer; and

• gave insufficient weight to the alternative nature of their claims, and to the fact that the trial would not have been appreciably shorter had they not pursued the unsuccessful causes of action.

150 It is well established that an appellate Court will not, in the absence of strong reasons, interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below with respect to the question of costs. As Callaway JA said in Hanlon v Brookes:**

It is almost invariably the case that the judge at first instance is better placed to deal with the costs after a long trial and counsel seeking leave ordinarily has a difficult task. The test is not whether we should have exercised the discretion in the same way as his Honour did but whether there was or were a ground or grounds on which he could reasonably do so.[198]

**151 Some of the bases on which this Court would disturb the costs orders made below include where an error in principle could be identified,[199] where the judge acted on a manifestly erroneous view of the facts,[200] or where the award was manifestly unreasonable.[201] In our view the appellants have not established any error in the exercise of the judge's discretion with respect to the question of costs. We explain below why we have also come to the view that the errors we have identified in his Honour's reasons have no bearing on the question of the costs.

152 The position as to costs where a party has been partially successful was summarised by Eames J in Pricom Pty Ltd v Sgarioto:[202]**

As a general rule costs should follow the event, and a successful party should obtain all of the costs of the action even although it failed to establish some of the alternative heads of its claim: Ritter v Godfrey (1920) 2 KB 47. However, in the exercise of its discretion the court may decline to order costs in favour of a successful party, or may order the successful party to pay the costs of the unsuccessful party, where the plaintiff failed to establish discrete heads of claim, or failed to establish issues which it pursued in its claim, although ultimately succeeding on the basis of another discrete head of

claim: Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc [1986] FCA 382; (1986) ATPR 40-748, per Toohey J at 48,136.[203]

**153 The judge below acknowledged that in the normal course, a plaintiff who was only successful on one of a number of pleaded causes of action would be entitled to costs.[204] In our view, the reasons his Honour gave for departing from this course were sound. The Rules of Court are wide enough to permit an apportionment of costs according to issues or causes of action.[205] Importantly, the judge regarded the case brought by the successful appellants as a 'substantial failure ... whether assessed by references to causes of action or issues.' His Honour observed that the plaintiffs had been successful in eight of the 63 causes of action they had brought, and that, assessed as a proportion of the disputed questions of fact resolved in their favour, the success of the plaintiffs was substantially less than that. In these circumstances, there was clearly a reasonable basis for his Honour's conclusion that a 'substantial injustice' would result from an award of costs in favour of the successful plaintiffs.[206]

154 It is difficult to understand the submission, advanced in the appellants' outline, that insufficient weight was given to the fact that the successful plaintiffs recovered more than was offered by the defendants by way of compromise. There was no challenge to the proposition, nor could there be, that a successful party may be deprived of their costs on issues on which they failed and may even be ordered to pay the costs of the other party on such issues.[207] That being so, and given that his Honour's costs decision was based primarily on the substantial failure of the plaintiffs' factual and legal claims, and that the successful cause of action by the successful plaintiffs related to such a small proportion of the trial, his Honour was entitled to give no or minimal weight, in the exercise of his discretion, to the fact that the damages awarded to the successful plaintiffs exceeded the offers of compromise and final Calderbank offer made by the defendants. That is to say, the inadequacy of the offers of compromise and the final Calderbank offer add nothing to the assessment of the extent of the plaintiffs' entitlement to costs.

155 We do not accept the appellants' contention that proof of the Wilkinson v Downton[208] claims required them to call almost all of the evidence which was led. Rather, the successful Wilkinson v Downton claims were decided on a very narrow factual basis. As the respondents submit, the factual basis for these claims was confined principally to sleep deprivation on the nights of Tuesday 26 and Wednesday 27 January 1999, and the use by the defendants of drums, chainsaws and generators.

156 The appellants also put their complaint in these terms: that the judge erred in failing to have regard to the fact that the 'plaintiffs' claims' were not severable. As we have noted, in exercising its discretion as to costs the court is entitled to take into account the failure of a party on certain 'issues'. But in this context, as the judge noted, 'issue' is not used in the technical pleading sense, but refers to any disputed question of fact of law.[209] Accordingly, the question of the severability of 'claims', in the sense of causes of action, is not precisely to the point. In any event, his Honour was aware of the need to consider the extent to which the evidence led in respect of the successful Wilkinson v Downton claims also related to the other causes of action. Despite the complex nature of the case, his Honour found that 'it remains entirely possible to identify the disputed issues which I had to resolve, and the evidence adduced specifically with respect to each of them.'[210] As his Honour found, the causes of action on which the successful plaintiffs failed dominated the trial.[211]

157 No complaint is made by the appellants about the judge's method of making a single order in apportioning the costs. It was certainly open to his Honour to do so.[212] Under r 63.04, the judge might have awarded costs in relation to particular questions or parts of the proceeding. We think it appropriate however, with respect, to observe that the approach taken by his Honour, of fixing of a certain proportion of a party's costs which should be paid by another party, has much to commend it.

158 In fixing costs a superior court may treat 'heads of controversy as units of litigation'[213] and give directions to the taxing master in relation to them, such units not being circumscribed by pleadings, causes of action or issues capable in themselves of leading to the granting of relief.[214] But to avoid the complications of taxation resulting from making orders recognising the entitlements to costs of a party on each action on which they were successful, the orders may be notionally set off against each other or other adjustments made so as to produce an order for a proportion of one party's costs.[215] This approach to costs orders where an action has had mixed success has been followed in a number of cases.[216] In Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc), Toohey J had regard to the fact that the plaintiff had succeeded on some issues but failed on others, but concluded that: 'it would be unsatisfactory to attempt to apportion issues and leave the fixing of costs of those issues to the taxing officer. That would impose a very great burden on him and upon the parties' legal representatives.'[217] In our view, the judge's approach to the apportionment of costs was particularly apposite in this case, having regard to the multiplicity of parties, actions, and issues, and the mixed success enjoyed by the plaintiffs.

159 As his Honour recognised, a single order for costs of the plaintiff's claim 'would the more readily facilitate taxation of costs, which could otherwise become a task of extraordinary complexity.'[218] His Honour's overall award to the defendants of 40% of their costs represented his:**

best attempt at synthesis of a series of considerations pertinent to the plaintiffs' claim: The success of some plaintiffs on some causes of action; the failure of some plaintiffs altogether; the success of some defendants altogether; the fact that even the successful plaintiffs failed upon many causes of action; the fact that the causes of action upon which some plaintiffs succeeded represented only a small fraction of the causes of action which were pleaded; the fact that there were very many issues joined upon which the plaintiffs failed, including issues pertinent to most of the causes of action upon which some plaintiffs ultimately succeeded; the fact that the plaintiffs succeeded upon some issues joined even though that did not always mean that a cause of action was established.[219]

**160 Not only did the judge's synthesis of all these factors produce an award which avoided the need for an expensive and complex taxation of costs, but it enabled his Honour to arrive at an assessment which was fair and just in all of the circumstances.[220]

161 Although the judge may be said to have erred in two respects, namely, in concluding that the existence of the police gate was capable of preventing the defendants' conduct from amounting to false imprisonment, and in concluding that there was no obstruction to SSP sufficient to constitute a public nuisance, we do not consider that those errors have any material affect upon the correctness of the costs orders that were made. They involved conclusions of law; the first was not the subject of any argument at the trial; and the second occupied little trial time. Moreover, each conclusion rested upon a complex matrix of facts which assumed critical importance in the trial and provided the foundation for many of his Honour's essential findings of fact which have not been shown to be in error.

162 His Honour's conclusions that the police gate existed, and the consequential findings that the same was accessible in the event that it had been requested; that contrary to the evidence of the appellants, no request was made;[221] and that the appellants' realisation that police assistance would provide a key to unlocking the picket,[222] were at all times relevant to the questions of why the police gate was not utilised, and thus whether the appellants wished to leave; the assessment of each appellant's credibility; and the nature of any injury they claimed to have suffered. As we have said we are not persuaded that the judge erred in finding that the police would have assisted if asked or that the appellants could have left by that means if they had chosen to ask. And those findings were likely to have substantially affected the quantum of any damage suffered by an appellant if his or her claim in false imprisonment or public nuisance had been made out.

163 In those circumstances, notwithstanding that the existence of the police gate which was, in our view, incapable of constituting a defence to the appellants' claims in false imprisonment; the resolution of the factual issues concerning the police gate had a significant bearing upon the appellants' causes of action in false imprisonment and public nuisance.

164 Equally, the degree of obstruction on SSR was at all times relevant to both of the principal causes of action. Under the claim of public nuisance, the extent to which access along SRR was denied bore upon the questions of the appellants' claimed wish to leave and the nature of any damage that arose as a consequence of the obstruction. For similar reasons, the obstruction, threatened or created by the respondents, and the presence of a possible means of egress via a police gate bore upon the claim of false imprisonment.

165 Further, although the picket line was in our view a sufficient obstruction to SRR to amount in law to a public nuisance, the judge's finding that no appellant, other than Ms Jackson, sought to pass along SRR; the conclusion, implicit in that finding, that none of the other appellants wished to leave; and the absence of evidence of any particular damage for inconvenience and delay attributable to the denial of passage, meant that the appellants had no right of action in respect of that public nuisance.

166 In summary, the success of the appellants on appeal in establishing the true legal character of both the obstruction to SRR and the police gate constitutes a Pyrrhic victory, because it does not alter the outcome with respect to either of the principal causes of action. The appellants failed at trial on almost all of the factual issues that underpinned these questions. And those findings which consumed substantial time at the trial, played a very large part in leading to his Honour's ultimate conclusions of fact.

167 Finally, we should say that we consider that the two errors do not materially change the basis upon which the orders for costs were premised. The reasons which led his Honour to the apportionment of costs remain sound. We can see no reason that requires this court to interfere with the carefully considered orders for costs which his Honour made.

168 We would refuse leave to appeal from his Honour's costs orders.**

[1] [1897] 2 QB 57.

[26] Subject to some qualifications which the judge mentioned.

[27] Fourth Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim, paragraphs 6 to 10.

[28] T1119.6 - a page not included in the appeal books by the Appellants.

[29] See for example, T894.15 (Dwan), T1082.23 (Lees) , T1148.16, T1147.7(McFadzean), T2612.25 (Epstein), T2791.18 (Kennerson). Dawson and Fowkes did not talk to Robinson: T1754 and T2266. The Appellants contend that certain Appellants were also cross-examined about an offer made by the police. The relevant evidence of Chief Inspector Robinson is set out at T3480.22. He asked them if they wanted to leave and they told him that they were not leaving: see also Exhibit 69, paragraph 6 where Chief Inspector Robinson states: 'At my direction the protesters were asked on a number of occasions if they wanted to leave. I personally asked them the same question. On each occasion they did not take up the offer.' At most the matters raised in paragraph 6(c) of the Notice of Appeal give rise to a forensic point.

[31] P Brett and L Waller, Criminal Law, (5th ed) 983 [3.41] (citing Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1768) Bk III, Ch 8, II).

[32] This was cited with approval in the judgments of Warrington LJ and Atkin LJ in Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Company Ltd (1919) 122 LT 44, 51, 53.

[33] Herbert Stephen and H L Stephen, (Stephen's) A Digest of Criminal Law (5th ed, 1894) Art 262.

[34] [1906] 1 Ch 1, 13 (citing Herring v Boyle [1834] EngR 139; (1834) 1 CM&R 377 (149 ER 377)).

[35] Herbert Stephen and H L Stephen, (Stephen's) A Digest of the Criminal Law (5th ed, (1894) Art 262; Lord Simonds (ed.), Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd ed.) Vol 10, 741 n (f); Butler and Garsia, Archbold, Criminal Pleadings Evidence and Practice, (37th ed, 1969) [2632].

[36] (1975) 12 SASR 184.

[38] Pocock v Moore (1825) Ry & Mood 321 (171 ER 1035); Macpherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184, 192 (Bray CJ).

[39] (1922) SASR 447.

[40] Ibid 453 (Murray CJ); The Queen v Macquarrie and Budge (1875) 113 SCR (NSW) 264, 274; Wright v Wilson [1792] EngR 2895; (1699) 1 LD Raym 739 (91 ER 1394).

[41] (1988) 50 SASR 392.

[44] Second Restatement of Torts, (1965) s 35; Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY 2d 451, 3 (New York, Court of Appeals, 1975).

[45] Burrow v K-Mart Corporation, 304 SE 2d 460, 463 (Georgia, Court of Appeals, 1983).

[46] Lopez v Winchell's Donut House, 466 NE 2d 1309, 1312 (Illinois, Court of Appeals, 1984).

[47] Second Restatement of Torts, (1965) s 30; Herbst v Wuennenberg, 266 NW 2d 391, 394-5 (Wis, 1978).

[48] Herbst v Wuennenberg 266 NW 2d 391, 396 (Wis, 1978), citing Prosser, Torts (4th ed, 1971), 44.

[49] See Linden Canadian Tort Law (7th ed), 50 citing Campbell v S S Kresge Co Ltd [1979] 74 DLR (3d) 717, 719.

[50] (1919) 122 LT 44.

[51] Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919) 122 LT 44, 44-45 (Atkin LJ).

[52] [1990] NTSC 40; (1990) 102 FLR 299.

[53] [2004] QCA 152; [2004] 2 Qd R 672.

[54] Go v The Queen [1990] NTSC 40; (1990) 102 FLR 299, 320. See also R v Awang [2004] QCA 152; [2004] 2 Qd R 672, 673.

[55] (1975) 12 SASR 184.

[56] [1990] NTSC 40; (1990) 102 FLR 299.

[57] [2004] QCA 152; [2004] 2 Qd R 672.

[58] [2006] NSWCCA 221; (2006) 164 A Crim R 1, 6.

[60] Ibid (McClellan CJ at CL with whom James and Hoeben JJ agreed).

[61] [1998] UKHL 24; [1999] 1 AC 458.

[62] (1919) 122 LT 44.

[63] [1998] UKHL 24; [1999] 1 AC 458, 465.

[66] (1903) 19 TLR 496, 497.

[67] [1998] UKHL 24; [1999] 1 AC 458, 486.

[69] Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742, 751 (115 ER 668); Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] VicRp 97; [1991] 2 VR 597, 601-2 (Murphy J).

[70] Myers Stores Ltd & Ors v Soo [1991] VicRp 97; [1991] 2 VR 597, 614 (O'Bryan J).

[71] It may be that the shopper who chose to stay rather than call police would not be entitled to recover as much by way of damages for false imprisonment as one who did not have available the option of calling police. But that would not necessarily be so. Courts have long made allowance for the sense of embarrassment and dislocation which a victim is likely to suffer when falsely detained. Each case depends of the facts.

[72] Fourth Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim, paragraphs 6 to 10.

[73] 'MR HOWELLS: Shortly, that by staging a protest as part of a picket and by causing a measure of inconvenience to the protesters ..., they were encouraged to vacate the area, a reasonable thing to do, and if they had to walk across some of that area to vacate the area, then that is a matter that the court of course would take into account..'

[74] For example, Jackson T197.28; see also Dwan 730-1.

[75] For example, Greig T436-442, 447-7; Fowkes; Gross 626-7; Lees 1099; McFadzean 1490-4.

[76] For example, Bowles was cross-examined about his knowledge of the route taken by Greig and Fowkes through the bush, and his capacity to use a compass and read a map: T1935. McFadzean was cross-examined about OREN maintaining a presence at Turton Track (1430), about Greig and Fowkes' preparations to leave through the bush (1487-8; 1489-90), reports he received from Greig about the journey through the bush (1431-2; 1490).

[77] Some of that evidence is reviewed in Judgment, [2027], [2028], [2034] to [2044].

[78] [1906] HCA 83; (1906) 4 CLR 379.

[80] (1875) 13 SCR (NSW) 264.

[81] See eg, Francis A Trindade, The Modern Tort of False Imprisonment in Mullany (ed) Tort in the Nineties (1997) 229, 240.

[82] [1953] St R Qd 26.

[84] (1988) 50 SASR 392.

[86] (1988) 50 SASR 392, 402. See also Trindade, above n, 246.

[87] 110 Me. 77 (1912), 85 A. 399.

[88] (1875) 13 SCR (NSW) 264.

[89] See The Balmain New Ferry Company v Robertson [1906] HCA 83; (1906) 4 CLR 379.

[90] See R v Macquarie and Budge (1875) 13 SCR (NSW) 264.

[91] See Burton v Davies and General Fire Accident and Life Assurance Corporation Limited [1953] St R Qd 26.

[92] Martin v Houck 141 NC 317 (1906), 54 SE 295.

[93] 195 SW 2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1946).

[95] Wright v Wilson [1792] EngR 2895; (1699) 1 Ld Raym 739, 740; [1792] EngR 2895; 91 ER 1394, 1395.

[99] 195 SW 2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1946).

[112] As considered in [42] above.

[113] See [74]-[79] above.

[114] Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118, 126; CSR Ltd & Anor v Della Maddalena [2006] HCA 1; (2006) 224 ALR 1, 7; [2006] HCA 1; 80 ALJR 458.

[115] MacPherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184, 192 (Bray CJ); Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] VicRp 97; [1991] 2 VR 597, 601-2 (Murphy J).

[118] Fourth amended Defence and Counterclaim, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.

[128] Myers Stores Ltd & Ors v Soo [1991] VicRp 97; [1991] 2 VR 597, 614 (O'Bryan J).

[130] See [86] above.

[147] Judgment, [2582] and [2585].

[148] [1908] HCA 62; (1908) 7 CLR 133, 139-140.

[149] R v Bartholomew [1908] 1 KB 554, 561; Haywood v Mumford [1908] HCA 62; (1908) 7 CLR 133, 141-2; Schubert v Lee [1946] HCA 28; (1946) 71 CLR 589, 594; Roy v Briggs [1987] VicRp 76; [1987] VR 924, 928.

[152] [1959] HCA 51; (1959) 103 CLR 30, 78 (Fullagar J).

[153] Lowdens v Keaveney [1903] 2 IR 82, 89.

[154] Reg v Carlile [1834] EngR 1121; (1834) 6 C & P 636, 649; R v Stephens (1866) LR 1 QB 702; Lowdens v Keaveney [1903] 2 IR 82, 89; Reg v Clark (No 2) [1964] 2 QB 315; Hubbard v Pitt [1976] 1 QB 142, 151; Pratt and MacKenzie's Law of Highways 21st Ed. (1967), 112, cited in Hubbard v Pitt.

[155] J Lyons & Sons v Wilkins [1899] 1 Ch 255; Hubbard v Pitt [1976] 1 QB 142, 188.

[156] Wolverton Urban District Council v Willis [1962] 1 WLR 205, 208.

[157] Harrison v Duke of Rutland [1893] 1 QB 142, 146-7.

[158] Reg v Carlile [1834] EngR 1121; (1834) 6 C & P 636, 649; Lowdens v Keaney [1903] 2 IR 82, 89; Reg v Clark (No 2) [1964] 2 QB 315.

[159] BLF v J-Corp Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 266; (1993) 42 FCR 452, 457 (Lockhart and Gummow JJ).

[160] Dollar Sweets Pty Ltd v Federated Confectioners Association of Australia [1986] VicRp 38; [1986] VR 383, 388-9; BLF v J-Corp, ibid 457. Broome v Director of Public Prosecutions [1973] UKHL 5; [1974] AC 587.

[161] Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones [1999] UKHL 5; [1999] 2 AC 240, 253.

[162] Summary Offences Act 1966 s 5; Roy v Briggs [1987] VicRp 76; [1987] VR 924, 928.

[163] Bullen & Leake and Jacob's Pleading Precedents, 12th Ed, [418].

[164] T5215 - 6, in the course of the final address of counsel for the defendants.

[165] Harper v G N Haden & Sons Ltd [1933] Ch D 298.

[167] Ibid 304 (Lord Hanworth), 308 (Lawrence LJ).

[168] John G Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th ed, 1998), 460-463; Walsh v Ervin [1952] VicLawRp 47; [1952] VLR 361, 368-9 (Sholl J).

[170] John G Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th ed, 1998), 462.

[171] Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (19th ed, 2006) [20-121]; Benjamin v Storr (1874) LR 9 CP 400; Fritz v Hobson (1880) LR 14 Ch D 542, 555; Jan de Nul v NV Royale Belge [2000] 2 Lloyds Rep 700.

[172] Winterbottom v Lord Derby (1867) LR 2 Ex 316.

[173] Chaplin & Co v Mayor of the City of Westminster [1901] 2 Ch 329; also The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 402, 430-435; Harvey v Shire of St Arnaud (1879) 5 VLR 312, 315; Walsh v Ervin [1952] VicLawRp 47; [1952] VLR 361, 368; Grand Central Car Park Pty Ltd v Tivoli Freeholders [1969] VicRp 9; [1969] VR 62, 69-70; Fridman, The Definition of Particular Damage in Nuisance, (1951-3) 2 Annual Law Review (Univ of WA) 490, 499-503; Kodilnye, Public Nuisance and Particular Damage in the Modern Law, (1986) 6 Legal Studies 182, 186-9.

[174] See Harvey v Shire of St Arnaud (1879) 5 VLR 312, 315; Walsh v Ervin [1952] VicLawRp 47; [1952] VLR 361, 370.

[175] Blundy, Clark & Company Ltd v London & North Eastern Railway Company [1931] 2 KB 334, 362 (Greer LJ).

[177] Accepting of course that there could not be double recovery.

[185] Judgment, [104], citing Rookes v Barnard [1964] UKHL 1; [1964] AC 1129.

[186] Judgment, [105]-[106], citing De Reus v Gray [2003] VSCA 84; (2003) 9 VR 432, 452 (Winneke P); Private Parking Services (Vic) Pty Ltd v Huggard (1996) Aust Torts Reports 81-397.

[187] Citing Backwell v AAA [1997] 1 VR 182, 208 (Ormiston JA).

[189] At the end of the passage quoted, the judge referred to what he had said earlier concerning the principles relevant to exemplary damages, [108]-[113].

[191] (1998) 196 CLR 1.

[193] [2003] VSCA 161; (2003) 9 VR 1.

[194] [2003] VSCA 161; (2003) 9 VR 1, 88 (Gillard AJA). Winneke ACJ (at 7) and Warren AJA (at 105) agreed with Gillard AJA on this point.

[195] [2004] VSC 480 ('Costs Judgment').

[196] The division was as follows: McFadzean 6.00%, Ms Lees 2.75%, Ms Jackson 1.50%, Ms Gross 2.00%, Bowles 4.00%, Dwan 6.00%, Ms Epstein 2.50%, Fowkes 6.00%, Greig 5.00%, Ms Colson 2.00%, and Ms Dawson 2.25%.

[197] The appellants complained that his Honour failed to apply the 'rule of thumb' discussed in Currabubula Holdings Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 232 (Unreported, Einstein J, 31 March 2000). However, the 'rule of thumb' discussed in that case is addressed to quite a different problem and has no application here: see [89]-[108].

[198] (1997) 15 ACLR 1626, 1632.

[199] See, eg, McCauley v McCauley [1910] HCA 16; (1910) 10 CLR 434, 455 (Isaacs J).

[201] Garrard (t/as Arthur Anderson & Co) v Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662, 668 (Kirby ACJ).

[202] (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Eames J, 10 April 1995).

[203] With respect to the court's ability to consider the relative success of the parties in respect of the issues raised in the proceeding, as well as with respect to causes of action: see Byrns v Davie [1991] VicRp 93; [1991] 2 VR 568. See also Rosniak v Government Insurance Office (1997) 41 NSWLR 608, 615 (Mason P).

[205] Woolf v Burman (1940) 13 ALJR 431; Byrns v Davie [1991] VicRp 93; [1991] 2 VR 568, 569 (Gobbo J).

[206] In Permanent Building Society v Wheeler [No 2] (1992) 10 WAR 569, a case involving multiple causes of action against multiple defendants, Anderson J (at 574) said that in awarding costs "[t]he court will always look at the realities of the case and attempt to do substantial justice."

[207] See the cases discussed in Butterworths, Civil Procedure ― Victoria, vol 1 (at 6 December 2007), r 63.04, "Costs of a particular question."

[208] [1897] 2 QB 57.

[209] Costs Judgment, [22]. See also Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4, 12 (Bray CJ); Colburt v Beard [1992] 2 Qd R 67, 70 (Thomas J).

[212] See Saarinen v Clay [1954] VicLawRp 56; [1954] VLR 392, 396 (Dean J). See also Cinema Press Ltd v Pictures & Pleasures Ltd [1945] KB 356, 363 (Lord Goddard and du Parcq LJ).

[213] Forster v Farquhar [1893] 1 QB 564, 569-70 (Bowen LJ).

[214] Colburt v Beard [1992] 2 Qd R 67.

[215] Byrns v Davie [1991] VicRp 93; [1991] 2 VR 568, 571 (Gobbo J); _Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association I_nc [1986] FCA 382; (1986) ATPR 40-748, 48 136 (Toohey J); Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1987) 17 FCR 211, 222; Pricom Ltd v Sgarioto (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, 24 April 1995) 8-10 (Eames J).

[216] See, eg, Saarinen v Clay [1954] VicLawRp 56; [1954] VLR 392, 396 (Dean J); Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc [1986] FCA 382; (1986) ATPR 40-748, 48 137 (Toohey J); Colburt v Beard [1992] 2 Qd R 67, 72 (Thomas J), 75 (Ryan J); Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [No 5] [1994] 1 Qd R 156, 208-10 (McPherson SPJ, Moynihan and Byrne JJ); Cinema Press Ltd v Pictures & Pleasures Ltd [1945] KB 356, 363 (Lord Goddard and du Parcq LJ).

[217] [1986] FCA 382; (1986) ATPR 40-748, 48 137.

[220] See Cinema Press Ltd v Pictures and Pleasures Ltd [1945] KB 356, 363 (Lord Goddard and du Parcq LJ).