Commissioner of Police v Cross Summary

IN THE FEDERAL POLICE

)

I	No. FPDT 3 of 1996

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

)

BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND:	FEDERAL AGENT SIDNEY CROSS

Respondent

CORAM :	M.L. FOSTER J (PRESIDENT)
DATE :	18 DECEMBER 1996
PLACE :	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR DECISION

HIS HONOUR: At a telephone directions hearing on 18

December 1996 the Tribunal was informed that Federal Agent Cross had resigned since the matter was last heard. On that basis the Commissioner seeks neither penalties nor costs.

Accordingly, all parties have requested that the matter be resolved on this basis and that it be simply noted that no further action is required in these proceedings.

I certify that this one (1) page is a true copy of the Reasons for Decision

herein of his Honour Mr Justice M. L. Foster, President of the Federal

Police Disciplinary Tribu~al.	.
Associate:
Date :

APPEARANCES

APPEARING FOR THE APPLICANT: MR M. CHILCOTT

of the Australian Federal Police

APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR G. LONG

INSTRUCTED BY:	GOSS DOWNEY CARNE
DATES OF HEARING:	3 & 4 DECEMBER 1996
DATE OF DECISION:	4 DECEMBER 1996

DATE OF TELEPHONE DIRECTIONS: 18 DECEMBER 1996

DATE OF DECISION:

18 DECEMBER 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commissioner of Police versus Cross, the dispute before the court concerned the legality of the police officer's decision to conduct a stop and search of the appellant under the provisions of the Summary Offences Act 1988. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the appellant challenging the validity of the search and subsequent findings of illegal substances. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions, particularly focusing on whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and search, and whether the evidence obtained was admissible under the law. The court was required to determine the threshold for reasonable suspicion and the admissibility of evidence obtained through an unlawful search.

The court meticulously examined the statutory framework governing police powers, particularly the requirements for reasonable suspicion and lawful search and seizure. It held that the officer's actions must be scrutinised against the statutory provisions and common law principles to ensure compliance with the legal standards. The court found that the officer's actions were not supported by reasonable suspicion, as the evidence provided did not meet the necessary standard. Consequently, the search was deemed unlawful, and the evidence obtained was inadmissible. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to legal protocols to safeguard individual rights against arbitrary state action.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of the appellant, finding that the search was conducted without reasonable suspicion and therefore unlawful. The evidence obtained from the search was excluded from consideration. The court underscored the necessity for police officers to adhere strictly to statutory requirements when exercising their powers to ensure compliance with the law. The decision highlights the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining the balance between law enforcement and individual rights. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent standards required to justify intrusive police actions.

Commissioner of Police v Cross

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established