A man who was behind bars for 58 days before his case was dropped has failed in suing a court, despite a magistrate's wording causing 'confusion'.
He was denied bail in October 2019 after being charged with breaching an interim family violence order, however, these restrictions had ceased almost two months beforehand.
The prosecution later offered "no evidence" and the ACT Magistrates Court dropped the charge.
In the ACT Court of Appeal, the man's lawyers had argued the Magistrates Court lacked jurisdiction to remand him, or his imprisonment was "arbitrary" under the Human Rights Act.
In a judgment published on Friday, the full bench - Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, Justice David Mossop and Justice Verity McWilliam - dismissed these claims.
"The entire premise of the system for granting and refusing bail is that people who are charged, but are innocent at law until proven guilty, may have their liberty curtailed pending trial," the judgment states.
"That is the system working, not failing."
The man, who has not been named for legal reasons, had previously taken the matter to the ACT Supreme Court but attempted to appeal its decision to dismiss his allegations.
In April 2019, the man was charged with property damage and a magistrate put in place a special interim family violence order.
The magistrate ordered it would stay in place "until all related charges are finalised", rather than allowing the order to operate until it ended under the Family Violence Act.
Four months later, the man was convicted and fined $2000 for the property damage.
This meant the charge was finalised and the restrictions ended, despite a final family violence order hearing not yet occurring.
In October 2019, the man visited his ex-partner's home and was arrested for breaching a family violence order.
He then faced court and was remanded in custody for 58 days until the charge was dropped and he was released.
The prosecution dropped the charge after discovering the wording of the order meant there was no prohibition on the man visiting his ex-partner's home.
The Court of Appeal stated on Friday that the wording of the order specifying its duration was "unfortunate".
"This was not required, and it caused confusion, as it was tied to the conclusion of other charges and not the family violence proceeding itself," the judgment states.
"However, mistakes within a system do not necessarily mean that the system itself fails, even when the consequence is that a person's liberty is affected."
-
Support is available for those who may be distressed. Phone Lifeline 13 11 14; 1800-RESPECT 1800 737 732.
