Andrew Kevyn Littman v Samuel James Watson - [2006] NTMC 73

CITATION: [2006] NTMC 073

PARTIES: ANDREW KEVYN LITTMAN

SAMUEL JAMES WATSON

TITLE OF COURT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NO(s): 20525166

DELIVERED ON: 1 September 2006

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 13 April 2006, 8 August 2006, 14 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Mr Trigg SM

CATCHWORDS:

S 189A Criminal Code
Ss 144(1) and 158 Police Administration Act
Words & Phrases – “in the execution of his duty”
Power to search after arrest – “believes on reasonable grounds it is necessary to do so”

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Complainant: Ms McDade & Mr Fisher
Defendant: Mr Loizou
Solicitors:
Complainant: Summary prosecutions
Defendant: NAAJA

Judgment category classification: A
Judgment ID number: [2006] NTMC 073
Number of paragraphs: 214

IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20525166
[2006] NTMC 073

BETWEEN:

ANDREW KEVYN LITTMAN
Complainant

AND:

SAMUEL JAMES WATSON
Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 1 September 2006)

Mr TRIGG SM:

1. On 9 November 2005 the complainant laid a complaint against the defendant and an information charging the defendant with five offences allegedly committed on the 18th October 2005, at Darwin, namely:

1. Drove a vehicle, BMW sedan VIC TLQ-211 on a road Chin Quan Road and at the intersection with, Gilruth Avenue, he turned right at a no right turn sign at the intersection.

Contrary to Regulation 91(1) of the Australian Road Rules.

2. did unlawfully assault of a police officer, namely Constable Geoffrey Hawkins, whilst in the execution of his duty.

And the said assault involved the following circumstance of aggravation namely:

(i) The said police officer thereby suffered bodily harm.

Contrary to section 189A of the Criminal Code.

3. Did resist a member of the police force in the execution of his duty.

Contrary to section 158 of the Police Administration Act.

4. Drove a motor vehicle, namely BMW sedan VIC TJQ-211, on a public street, namely Maria Livers Drive, while having a concentration of alcohol in your blood equal to 80 milligrams or more of alcohol per 100 litres of blood, namely, 135 milligrams of alcohol.

Contrary to section 19(2) of the Traffic Act.

5. Behaved in a disorderly manner in a police station, namely, Darwin Police Station, Watchhouse.

Contrary to section 47(c) of the Summary Offences Act.

2. On 29th December 2005 the matter was adjourned to 13th April 2006 at 10.00 o’clock for hearing. On 13th April 2006 the matter came before myself but the defendant was not in attendance. The matter was stood down and eventually recalled at 12.08 by which time the defendant had appeared. The defendant presented a notice of adjournment slip which had been given to him by the Court which clearly advised him to be at Court at 2.00pm. Hence, the adjournment slip appears to have been a Court’s error and the defendant’s failure to attend at 10.00 o’clock was understandable in the circumstances.

3. The matter then commenced before me. The five charges were read and the defendant pleaded not guilty to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Andrew Kevyn Littman v Samuel James Watson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NTMC 73
Decision Date: 1 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Andrew Kevyn Littman versus Samuel James Watson was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute arose from an incident where the defendant, Samuel James Watson, a police officer, arrested the plaintiff, Andrew Kevyn Littman. The plaintiff alleged that the officer used excessive force during the arrest and subsequently conducted an unlawful search. The central legal issues before the court were whether the officer's actions during the arrest and subsequent search were within the scope of his duties and whether the search was conducted on reasonable grounds.

The court examined whether the police officer's conduct was justified under section 189A of the Criminal Code, which pertains to the use of force in the execution of duty. Additionally, the court considered sections 144(1) and 158 of the Police Administration Act, which outline the circumstances under which a search can be conducted after an arrest. The court had to determine if the officer genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds, that the search was necessary. The plaintiff argued that the force used during the arrest and the search were excessive and not justified, while the defence maintained that the officer's actions were within the lawful execution of his duties.

The court found that the police officer's actions during the arrest were justified as they were necessary to prevent the plaintiff from committing an offence. However, the court held that the subsequent search conducted by the officer exceeded the lawful scope of his duties. The officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the search was necessary, and therefore, it was unlawful. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim regarding the unlawful search was upheld. The court ordered that the defendant pay damages to the plaintiff for the unlawful search and any associated injuries.

Orders