//
[1983] FCA 6
General information, not legal advice.
Federal Court of Australia
1983-02-08
Fisher JJ, Franki J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Legal incapacity - Whether felon convicted of non-capital offence able to maintain action for
Treason and Felony Forfeiture Act 1874 (S.A.) ss.8, 9
ALEXANDER PRUS-GRZYBOWSKI v. PAUL ANTHONY EDWARD EVERINGHAM & ORS.
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. N.T.G. 1 of 1981
On Appeal from The Supreme Court of The Northern Territory
ORDER JUDGES MAKING ORDERS: FRANKI, TOOHEY and FISHER JJ. DATE OF ORDERS: 8 February 1983 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. N.T.G. 1 OF 1981
On Appeal from The Supreme Court of The Northern Territory
The appellant, Mr. Alexander Prus-Grzybowski sued the three respondents, who at the material time were carrying on a legal practice in partnership, for damages for negligence arising
out of legal work carried out by the partnership at Alice Springs
The writ was issued in November 1978. On 27 August 1975 the plaintiff was convicted upon his plea of guilty of a charge of wounding with intent. On 29 August 1975 he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with hard labour. A period of 4 years was fixed before he became eligible for parole.
On 28 May 1980 the plaintiff was released on licence
Pursuant to the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923. It
was agreed before the learned trial Judge that the sentence
imposed on the prisoner did not expire until 28 August 1983.
On 31 October 1980 an order was made by a Judge of the Supreme -Court of the Northern Territory in chambers permitting the delivery of an amended defence alleging that the appellant
was a convict within the meaning of the South Australian Treason
and Felony Forfeiture Act 1874, ("the Act"), serving a term of imprisonment with hard labour, and that he was therefore
The plaintiff instituted an appeal but before the hearing the trial Judge ordered that there be tried, as a preliminary point of law, the question "whether or not s.8 of the
Treason and Felony Forfeiture Act 1874 of the State of South
Australia constituted a full defence to the plaintiff's claim". It was conceded that the Act was part of the law of the Northern
The learned trial Judge answered the question he had posed: "Yes", and ordered that the appellant's claim should be dismissed with costs. The appellant has appealed to this Court against the order of the learned trial Judge which, if it stands,
had the effect of terminating the appellant's action.
The learned trial Judge's order was based upon the view
that s.8 of the Act applied and the appellant was unable to bring
an action "... for the recovery of any property, debt, or damage
whatsoever ...". He considered that to limit the word '"damage" to damage to property would make little or no grammatical or
other sense. It was common ground that the appellant fell within
"6. The expression 'convict,' as herein used, shall be deemed to mean any person against whom, after the passing of this Act, judgment of death, or of imprisonment with hard labour, shall have been pronounced or recorded by any Court of competent jurisdiction in the said
Province, upon any charge of treason or felony. 7. When any convict shall die or be
adjudicated insolvent, or shall have suffered any punishment to which sentence of death if pronounced or recorded against him may be lawfully commuted, or shall have undergone the full term of imprisonment with hard labor, for which judgment shall have been pronounced or recorded against him, or such other punishment as may by competent authority have been substituted for such full term, or shall have received from Her Majesty, or the Governor on behalf of Her Majesty, a pardon for the treason or felony of which he may have been
convicted, he shall thenceforth, so far as relates to the provisions hereinafter contained, cease to be subject to the operation of this Act.
void against such Curator, save as hereinafter provided."
The appeal can best be considered by examining three
Question l. Is a person convicted of a felony, not involving attainder, unable to bring any civil action in respect of
Question 2. Does s.8 of the Act by its use of the words "No action at law or suit in equity for the recovery of any property, debt, or damage whatsoever shall be brought by any convict against any person during the time while he shall be subject to the operation of this Act..." prevent a person convicted of a felony, not involving attainder, from bringing a civil action in respect of damage, other than to property, or physical damage to the person.
Question 3. Do the words "... including choses in actions (sic) -.." an s.9 of the Act have the effect of vesting in any curator appointed pursuant to that section any rights of action for
This question was considered in Dugan v. Mirror Newspapers Ltd.
(1978) 142 C.L.R. 583 by Jacobs J., with whose judgment Mason and Aickin JJ. agreed, and Barwick C.J. at p.587 and Gibbs J., (as he
then was), at p.588, expressed substantial agreement.
"However, on such an important question of civil right, authority or principle would need to be found to support such a supposed rule when it cannot be based on attainder. I have not been able to find such authority or any principle from which it could be deduced. T would therefore expressly leave "the question open."
proposition that a felon, whilst attainted cannot maintain an
There is substantial support in the works of many leading text writers for the proposition that the right to sue for personal injury was not affected by every conviction for a felony. Examples are to be found in Salmond's Law of Torts 10th edn. at p.69, Winfield The Law of Tort 4th edn. at pp.110-111,
Comyns Digest of the Laws of England Vol IV p. 398, Gatley Libel
and Slander 3rd edn. pp.426~-427 and Clerk and Lindsell Law of
Torts 9th edn. p.42. A more guarded view was expressed in Odgers
The Common Law of England (1911) Vol. II p.1418. Most of the
latest editions of these works do not dea] with this question.
In my opinion we should proceed upon the basis that a person convicted of a felony, not involving attainder, can bring
These questions turn upon the meaning of the word "damage" in s.8. The learned trial Judge took the view that the word "damage" and "damages" were interchangeable and in the light of this view he read s.8 as preventing an action for the recovery of damages for negligent advice or indeed any action for damages. It may be helpful to pay some regard to s.9 of the Act. The Act 1s entitled : "An Act to abolish Forfeitures for Treason and Felony and to otherwise amend the Law relating thereto".
Section 1 provided, in substance, that no conviction "for any treason or felony committed within South Australia "... shall cause any attainder or any forfeiture or escheat".
This Act 1s obviously one of a remedial nature and should not be construed in a way detrimental to a convict if another construction is reasonably open. Section 9 makes provision for the vesting in a curator of "... all the real and personal property, including choses in actions (sic) to which the convict ... was at the time of his conviction ... entitled ...". A curator might be appointed generally or with reference to a
Sections 8 and 9 have the effect that at least certain raghts of action are denied to the convict under s.8 but that some rights may be vested in the curator under s.9. By s.18, upon the completion of the sentence, pardon or death, property
vested in the curator, and not otherwise used for one of the
purposes provided in the Act, reverts to the convict or his legal
It appears that the issue raised by question 2 was dealt with only superficially before the learned trial Judge but we have had the benefit of very detailed and 'thorough arguments by counsel for the appellant, counsel for the first and second
defendants and by the third defendant who appeared personally.
Counsel for the appellant placed in the forefront of his
argument the judgment of the divisional court in Smith v. Brown
(1871) 6 Q.B. 729. In that case Cockburn C.J., and Hannen J. held that personal injury caused by the collision of two vessels did not come within the term "damage" which appeared in s.7 of 24 Vict. c. 10 (the Admiraity Court Act) which gave jurisdiction to the High Court of Admiralty "over any claim for damage done by any ship". A question arose whether the jurisdiction of the
Court of Admiralty extended to the claim under consideration.
The claim was by the widows of certain persons who were drowned by the sinking of a vessel which was ran down in a collision with a vessel owned by the defendants. The view expressed by the majority in that case appears to be the view existing at the time when the English Act of 1870 abolishing forfeiture for treason and felony was passed. Cockburn C.J. and
extensive; but it is to be observed that neither in common parlance nor in legal phraseology is the word 'damage' used as applicable to injuries done to the person, but solely as applicable to mischief done to property. Still less is this term applicable to loss of life, or injury resulting therefrom to a widow or surviving relative. We speak, indeed, of damages as compensation for injury done to the person; but the term 'damage' is not employed interchangeably with the term 'anjury,' with reference to mischief wrongfully occasioned to the person".
In Nagrant v. The Regis (1939) 61 C.L.R. 688 and Union
Steamship Co. of New Zealand Ltd. v. Ferguson (1969) 119 C.L.R.
191 the High Court considered the meaning of the same words and adopted a somewhat different approach. The High Court decided those cases by determining whether the ship, as an active agent, was the direct cause of the harm in the sense that it was the noxious instrument rather than by limiting the meaning of the
word "damage" to damage to property. In Nagrint v. The Regis,
supra, Dixon J. as he then was, at p.695 cited the following
passage from the judgment of Brett M.R. in The Vera Cruz (No. 2)
(1884) 9 P.D. 96 in relation to s.7 of the Admiralty Court Act:
"I do not say that damage need be confined to damage to property, it may be damage to person, as if a man were injured by the bowsprit of a ship. But the section does not apply to a case when physical injury is not done by a ship."
Reliance was also placed on the words "any" and "whatsoever" in s.8 of the Act and we were referred to Nippon v.
Acme Shipping Corporation (1972) 1 All E.R. 35. However the
meaning to be attributed to those words must depend on the
In my opinion the question before us is to be determined by a consideration of the nature of the Act. Whilst the question is a difficult one I consider that, on balance, the word "damage" iun s.8 should be construed as limited either to damage to property (as in Smith v. Brown, supra) or to physical damage to a
person (as in Nagrint v. The Regis, supra). An action for
negligence in providing professional advice does not fall within either construction. The Act, being one to improve the position of "convicts", could not be expected to reduce any existing rights which would only be reduced by clear words. Provision was made in s.9 for "real and personal property, including choses in actions" (sic) to vest in the Curator. The question arises
whether an action for damages for negligent advice falls within
the words "choses in actions" (sic). This is the third question which I have posed. Sections 8 and 9 seem, so far as is relevant, to be complementary. I consider that s.9 should be
read so as not to make provision for the vesting of any rights in the Curator unless those rights are denied to the convict by s.8. In my opinion this 1s a permissible and the proper construction of the Act. We were not referred to any clear authority on what 1s included within the words "choses in action" but it seems probable that a right of action for negligent professional advice 1s not a chose in action within s.9. (See generally Brown v.
judgment of the learned trial Judge dismissing the appellant's
claim and remit the further hearing of the matter to the learned trial Judge. I would order that the appellant's costs of the proceedings on the preliminary point of law before the trial
a a a the Core Core ose ares mv a venue copy of the ™) of. 9 Sor Judgment herein of his i-c13.c:
| : | Carre cee AG fone as Dated: $ Abarat / APES 7
) ) NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NT.G1 of 1981 ) )
ON APPEAL FROM TITIE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
CORAM: Franki, Toohey and Fisher JJ. s Fetorvany 1A73.
Toohey and Fisher JJ: This is an appeal from a ruling of the Chief
Justice of the Northern Territory on the trial of a preliminary point of law raised by the respondentsin an action against them by the appellant. On 31 October 1980 a Judge of that Court gave leave
to the respondents to file an amended defence in the action adding
TN A tl LE RI BRR SS NL EEE AN STERNAL A RAS eh finale SL te ee aoe
"4a. At the time of the commencement of this action, at all material times thereafter, and at the present time, the plaintiff was and is a convict within the meaning of the South Australian [reason and Felony Forfeiture Act 1874, serving a term of imprisonment of hard labour, and the plaintiff was, and is, therefore subject to the operation of the said Act and precluded thereby from bringing and maintaining this action."
The cruczral section of the Treason and Felony Act 1874 is s.8 which
"8. No action at law or suit in equity for the recovery of any property, debt or damage whatsoever, shall be brought by any convict against any person during the time while he shall be subject to the operation of this Act; and every conyict shall be incapable, during such time as aforesaid, of alienating or charging any property, or of making any contract, save as hereinafter provided."
As the fact of imprisonment and the applicability at the relevant time cf£ the South Australian legislation to the Northern Territory were conceded, the learned Chief Justice ordered that a preliminary question of law be tricd, namely "whether or not s.8 of the Treason
and Felony Forfeiture Act 1874 of the State of South Australia
constitutes a full defence to the plaintiff's claim". After hearing argument he gave an affirmative answer to this question thereby leading him to order that the appellant's claim be dismissed with
costs. From that judgment an appeal was taken to this Court.
The appellant had sued the three respondents, who at all material taumes were carrying on legal practice in partnership, for damages for negligence arising out of professional services rendered by them in Alice Springs during 1973, The writ initiating the proceedings was iussued out of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 16 November 1978. Pxior to that date however the appellant had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of a charge of wounding with
intent. The sentence imposed on 29 August 1975 upon him was that of
RM ENN OLOAD AREER I TET Taleo 2A De 7 EIS So te ta SP A ern tar 0 SL RINE 1 COTES Er Ota LO
eight years imprisonment with hard labour with a non-parole period of four years. This sentence of imprisonment for relevant purposes will not expire until 28 August 1983, although he has been released
on licence pursuant to the Removal of Prisoners (Territories Act) 1923
The Treason and Felony Act 1874 of the State of South Australia ("the Act") was at the time of enactment part of the law of the Northern Territory, the Territory having been annexed to that State by an Order in Council dated 6 July 1863 pursuant to s.51 of the
Australian Constitutions Act 1842, It remainedpart of the law of
the Northern Territory notwithstanding its repeal in South Australia by the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 of that State. It was recently' repealed by the Legislative Assambly of the Northern Territor but only after the limitation period applicable to the appellant's cause of action against the respondents had expired. Section 330 of
the Criminal Law Consolidation Act is virtually indistinguishable
from s.8 of the Act, which in turn is an exact counterpart of s.8
As the Chief Justice related, by virtue of s.7(1) of the
Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910, s.5 of the Northern
Territory Administration Act 1910 and s.57 of the Northern Territory
(Self-Government) Act 1978, the Act remained part of the law of the
Northern Territory and thus s.8 thereof had application to the - circumstances of the appellant. He also set out the provisions of s.6 and s.7 of the Act and there is no need for us to repeat them. Wewould however draw attention at this stage to the full title of the Act, the preamble thereto and s.1 thereof for they direct
consideration to the historical background against which in our
opinion it is necessary to interpret the word "damage" in s.8. They are in the following terms: "An Act to abolish Forfeitures for Treason and Felony,
and to otherwise amend the law relating thereto. Whereas it 1s expedient to abolish the forfeiture of
lands and goods for treason and felony, and to otherwise
amend the law relating thereto - Be it therefore enacted
by the Governor of the Province of South Australia,
with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council
and House of Assembly of the said Province, in this
Province, shall cause any attainder or any forfeiture or escheat."
The learned Chief Justice, in his reasons for giving an affirmative answer to this preliminary question of law, considered the meaning to attach to the word "damage" in accordance with the somewhat narrow approach put to him by counsel, namely whether it should be construed as meaning damages generally or as limited to damage to property. He appears to have accepted that in certain contexts damage means damages generally and in other circumstances it has been given a more limited meaning. However on the basis that to read theword damage in s.8 of the Act in the latter sense, namely as damage to property, would in his opinion make little or no grammatical or other sense,he decided that the amended pleading was a
On the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a wider question, namely the civil consequences at common law of a criminal conviction and the need to read s.8 and in particular the word damage both in the context of the Act'as a
whole and against the historical background. Considered in this way
re ed Cen teeta pr etell aRAAT RELA CN RAL SL, AMERSHAM Tae SRR RET OC BE HN ee EE TAREE oherh SE nt Dg Re Eas WNT Rie a et tA EF et een eA Se Dea th TRE YS EE GE LO Re ee pee awn
the appeal raises squarely the question whether at common law a felon convicted of a non-capital offence was under a legal disability to maintain a civil action, and if so,whether that general disability survived in South Australia the enactment of the 1874 Act, except
to the extent that it was by s.8 expressly preserved.
This disability had its historical origins in the Anglo-Saxon penal system of "outlawry", whereby the criminal not only risked or lost his life but was deprived of all his civil and proprietary rights (Pollock & Maitland, The History of English Law Vol.11 p.447). The concept developed during Norman times and thereafter into a procedure denoted as "attainder" whereby the criminal was declared to be "attainted"., In consequence he suffered a number of disabilities, in particular deprivation of his property and his civil rights.
"When sentence of death, the most terrible, and highest judgment in the laws of England, is pronounced, the immediate inseparable consequencefrom the common law is attainder. For when it is now clear beyond all dispute that the criminal is no longer fit to live upon the earth, but is to be exterminated as a monster and a bane to human society, the law sets a note of infamy upon him, puts him out of its protection, and takes no further care of him than barely to see him executed. He 1s then called attaint, attinctus, stained or blackened. He is no longer of any credit or reputation; he cannot be a witness in any Court; neither is he capable of performing the functions of another man for by an anticipation of his punishment, he is already dead in law." (4 Blackstone Commentaries 380).
As a result of this loss of proprietary and civil rights, including escheat, forfeiture of personal property, corruption of blood (which affected as well the family of the crminal), loss of the right to public office, and deprivation of the right to sue in the courts, the criminal was regarded as suffering "civil death"; he
was "civiliter mortuus". This civil death and its attendant
disabilities were the consequence of the criminal conduct of the
convict who had been "attainted" and were suffered so long as the attainder endured. Civil death and attainder were synonymous
and were imposed upon a criminal convicted of the offence
of treason or felony. Treason and almost all felonies were capital offences and carried the death penalty, and attainder followed as
a matter of course. As Jacobs J. said in Dugan v Mirror Newspapers
Ltd. (1978) 142 C.L.R. 583 at p.602: "Attazrnder was the consequence of a capital sentence; see Chitty's Criminal Law, Ist ed. (1816) vol. 1, pp.723-5; thus no attainder followed judgment upon conviction for
petit larceny, the only felony which at common law did not carry a judgment of death." .
Thus to the extent that a person convicted of a felony was disabled 'from suing in the courts, this was the consequence of attainder. For present purposes therefore it is most significant that the South Australian legislature expressly abolished attainder for treason or felony committed within the province. By so doing it went further than the legislature in New South Wales, as Stephen J. acknowledged in Dugan v Mirror Newspapers Ltd. at p.601 when he said
"Having concluded that the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1883
did not, by its mere silence, affect any change in the law concerning attainder and its consequences, I also regard
the provisions of the Crimes Act,1900 as leaving this position unchanged."
Section 465 of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) provided;
"465 (1). No inquest, conviction, or judgment, in respect of any felony shall cause any escheat or forfeiture of land or goods."
By way of contrast s.l1 of the South Australian Act provided;
"1. From and after the passing of this Act, no confession, verdict, inquest, conviction, or judgment of or for any treason or felony committed within the said Province, shall cause any attainder or any forfeiture or escheat." (emphasis added).
Counsel for the respondents contended that at common law persons convicted of any felony, whether or not carrying sentence of death and whether or not they were suffering attainder, were incapable of suing in the Courts. However there seems to be little af any authority for a principle of such general application. Certainly this was how the matter appeared to Jacobs J.in Dugan v
Mirror Newspapers Ltd, with whose reasoning on this point a majority
"Whether or not it was law (separate from the law of attainder) that a person convicted of a non-capital felony was disabled to bring an action either wholly or until he had endured the punishment to which he was adjudgéd appears to me uncertain. I can find no clear authority upon the question, Batty v Fay (1795) Ridg.L & S 511, was a case of attainder upon judgment of death. Fleming v Smith (1861) 12 Ir.C.L. 404, was argued as a case of forfeiture upon a conviction for felony. Such a plea was a good plea in bar. It was there held that there was no forfeiture of rights of action for damages in tort. It should be noted that the statute 9 Geo IV, c.32 by s.3 appears to assume that there was some disability until the person had undergone the adjudged punishment but the section may have been dealing only with forfeiture. Dicey in his Parties to an Action states at p.2 that a person convicted of a felony becomes incapable of suing at law or in equity, and remazns under this disability until either he has obtained a pardon, or his term of punishment has expired. He first cites Whitaker v Wisbey (1852) 12cC,B44, but that case dealt only with the question whether goods of a felon bona fide transferred by him prior to conviction were liable to forfeiture. Then he cites Bullock v Dodds (1819)2 B.& Ald. 258 to which I shall later refer, and then Coke on Littleton, 390b. However Coke there deals only with attainder and forfeiture. He does not state that a person convicted of the non-capital felony, petit larceny, and therefore not attainted could not sue."
H2s Honour then referred to some Imperial and New South Wales legislation and commented at p.603:
"However, on such an important question of civil right, authority or principle would need to be found to support such a supposed rule when it cannot be based on attainder.
I have not been able to find such authority or any principle from which it could be deduced. I would therefore expressly leave the question open."
SE Sr PT ci a Pe faa i it eee elect aS SATA pH i UT SE AAD Lira ng She SLs Saba GEE BEES FEE EO OS SO ETS SRR S TE me
In his subsequent reference to Bullock v Dodds Jacobs J. noted
that it was a matter in which judgment of death had been given. Counsel for the respondents in the present appeal did not cite any additional authority to support his contention that a person convicted of a non-capital offence could not sue at common law.
The Treason and Felony Act 1874 of the State of South Australia
was thus enacted at a time when the real and personal property of
a convict was forfeited by virtue of his conviction and if he was convicted of a capital of fence he was attainted and disabled from bringing an action in the Courts. If his offence was a non-capital felony his capacity to sue was uncertain, there being at least in the words of Jacchs J. already quoted no "authority or any principle
It appears that the South Australian legislature had two objectives in mind, namely to abolish attainder and also forfeiture. It expressly retained,in the case of treason or felony, disqualificatio for public office, corruption of the blood probably having been abolished earlier by an Imperial Act. However having abolished forfeiture, it did not propose that the convict should retain unrestricted enjoyment of his property. If a Curator was appointed by the Governor, either generally or with reference to a particular convict, all of the real and personal property of the convict includin choses in action, might be vested in the Curator (s.9). The property was held by the Curator for the purpose of meeting the liabilities of the convict, whether they be the costs of his prosecution (s.3), compensation to persons injured by the felony (s.4) or the support
of his family (s.16). When the convict ceased to be subject to
the Act, his property reverted to him and the Curator was obliged
In our opinion s.8 of the Act should be construed in the light of the fact that the convict has lost control of his property, which control has vested in the Curator. The legislature understand- ably perceived the necessity to restrain the convict from suing to recover from the Curator or any other person his property which was now under the control of the Curator but which in earlier years would have been forfeited to the Crown, Likewise it was necessary to deny the convict the right to deal an any way with his property.
It 1s significant for the purposes of the present appeal that s.9 refers to the property of the convict which vested in the Curator as being "all the real and personal property, including choses in actions (sic) to which the convict,.. was at the time of has conviction, or wall afterwards while he shall continue subject to the operations of this Act, become or be entitled", A question arises whether a cause of action in negligence was, prior to the Act, laable to forfeiture and whether it 1s properly described as a
Counsel for the appellant cited many references in text books almost all of which support the proposition that rights of action for personal torts were not forfeited. He referred 1n particular to
Comyns Digest of the Laws of England 5th ed. p.398, Winfield
The Law of Torts4th ed. pp.110 and 111, SalmonmiThe Law of Torts 10th
ed. p.69, Clerk and Lindsell The Law_of Torts 9th ed. p.42 and
(contra) Gatley Libel and Slander in a Civil Action 3rd ed. pp.426
and 427. Causes of action for personal torts in this event did not need to be dealt with by the Act as they were unaffected, at least un respect of forfeiture, by the conviction. It would be surprising therefore 1f by vesting choses in action in the Curator the legislature deprived the convict of the benefit of a cause of
Moreover there is much authority for the proposition that a right of action in tort is not a chose in action. If this be the case, only those choses in action which are referable to the convict's property and which were earlier forfeited vest in the Curator. We
refer to the discussion of this aspect of the matter by Stout C.J.
in Brown v Teare (1903) 22 N.2.L.R. 155 at pp.157-8. His Honour was there dealing with a claim for damages for negligence and assault,
which claim he held did not pass to the Curator as a chose in action.
Construing s.8 in the context of the legislation and against the historical background, it wouid appear to be at least logical to restrict its application to the subject matter of the Act, namely the property which earlier had been forfeited and was now to be vested 1n a Curator. Such an approach explains why the only action of which a convict is deprived is an action for recovery of property, debt or damage to property which causes of action vested ian and were exercisable by the Curator. The fact that such causes of action were capable of being pursued by the Curator would mean that no prejudice would necessarily be suffered under the Statutes of Limitation, It would be otherwise in respect of any cause of action
which did not vest in the Curator, for imprisonment was not one of the
It 1s our opinion that s.8 should be construed in a way which restricts the convict in respect only of those of his rights which vest in the Curator. Certainly it would be surprising if the consequence of the section was to impose a restriction upon a person convicted of a non-capital felony which he previously probably did not suffer. Equally it would be surprising if the consequence of the section was that nobody could sue and thus all civil remedies in respect of the alleged negligence were lost. This would be a
considerable hardship and as the learned Chief Justice said during
argument would produce "quite barbarous" results. g Pp
Such an unsatisfactory conclusion is in our opinion properly avoided by construing the word "damage" as being in the context limited to damage to the property of the convict. That property has vested in the Curator and he 1s the most appropriate person to sue to recover any damage which during his curatorship or prior thereto the property has suffered. The decision of Legoe J. in
Milera v Wilson (1980) 23 S.A.S.R. 485 based on s.330 of the South
Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, that a prisoner was
incapable of suing for damages for conversion of a cheque is distinguishable on this ground. The convict retains the right to sue upon causes of action which are not based upon or related to recovering his property and which generally would be in respect of damage to his person. In the present matter, if the consequence of the alleged negligence was to damage the appellant in his property, he is disbarred from suing. He retains the right to sue in respect of damage to his person. In the manner in which the question 1s framed, the answer must be that s.8 does not constitute Wy full
defence to the plaintiff's claim". It is possible that at the
conclusion of the hearing of the action, the section may constitute
a defence to some elements of the appellant's claim,
The appeal should be allowed with costs. The judgment of the learned Chief Justice dismissing the appellant's claim should be set aside and the matter remitted to His Honour for determination in accordance with these reasons. The costs of the hearing of the
preliminary issue should be reserved to the trial judge.
leery mat this andthe JE preven a pages aré a true copy of the Reasons '* Judgment of Mr. Justice Fisher and Mr
Justice Toohsy ; Px = 7 - Associate- : Dated: 8 February 1983