Loading Mr Attalla was sitting on a stone wall on Bourke Street, near the corner of William Street, texting on his mobile phone when he was confronted by three police officers at about 3.30am on March 24. On his account, Mr Attalla told police he was "just sitting, having a cigarette, texting and minding my own business" after being asked what he was doing. One of the officers, Senior Constable Courtney Cruickshank, gave evidence that after being told Mr Attalla lived in The Rocks and was heading home, it didn't make sense to her as to why he was on Bourke Street as it was the "wrong direction". She told Mr Attalla she believed he was in possession of illicit drugs and said he would be searched. He refused to submit and Senior Constable Cruickshank told him he was under arrest for hindering police. Another police vehicle arrived and, while Senior Constable Cruickshank went to speak to other officers in that vehicle, another officer handcuffed and searched Mr Attalla. No drugs were found.

He was then taken to Kings Cross police station to be strip-searched. Again, nothing was found. He was charged with hindering police but the proceedings were withdrawn. Mr Attalla then sued the state for wrongful arrest, assault and battery. The police officers have used a most invasive power without the slightest justification Judge Phillip Taylor The state argued police had reasonable grounds to search Mr Attalla because of the time and location of where he was sitting - an area where prostitution, drug dealing and break-and-enters took place - as well as him becoming more aggressive during the conversation. Judge Taylor rejected the time of day and day of the week as reasonable grounds for a search, and said the location "did not suggest Mr Attalla to be possessing prohibited drugs any more than it suggested that Mr Attalla was engaged in prostitution or house-breaking, matters no officer suspected." Senior Constable Cruickshank said Mr Attalla appeared startled when police initially drove up to him, but Judge Taylor said it was "unsurprising" a person's attention would be drawn to a police car driving towards them with headlights on, a short distance away and during the early morning, when there was no other activity.

Loading "Nor do I accept that an account by Mr Attalla for sitting on the stone wall could, false or true, support a suspicion for possessing prohibited drugs," Judge Taylor said. "Officer Cruickshank appeared ready to find an untruth when there was none, and then used that in her mind to bolster her suspicion." Judge Taylor found Mr Attalla didn't change his demeanour until a search was proposed, saying it wasn't "surprising that a person may become more adamant when it is suggested, especially by the police, that they are untruthful, even more so when they are to be searched because of it". Judge Taylor found the search was unlawful and Mr Attalla was entitled to resist. He also determined the arrest was unlawful as Senior Constable Cruickshank held no reasonable belief Mr Attalla was hindering police.

Mr Attalla described the experience of being strip-searched as "outrageous": "It was something that I thought I'd never, ever be in a position to be treated in such a humiliating fashion". Senior Constable Cruickshank accepted she may have told Mr Attalla following the search, "if you just did what we asked you to do ... this could have all been avoided." Judge Taylor said Senior Constable Cruickshank "admitted a lack of familiarity" with strip-search legislation. "The decision to compel a strip-search appeared to be a response to Mr Attalla's lack of submission at the scene. In my view, it warrants a significant award of exemplary damages," he said.