Cooper v Police

The case of Cooper v Police arose from the appellant's conviction in the Magistrates Court for failing to comply with a direction given by an authorised officer under the Passenger Transport (Regular Passenger Services; Conduct of Passengers) Regulations 1994, and for resisting police. The appellant had been directed by a police officer to leave the concourse area of the Adelaide Railway Station due to his state of intoxication and subsequently resisted when officers attempted to remove him. The legal issues before the court included whether the charge was brought under the correct regulation and whether the preconditions for the officer's power to direct the appellant to leave the concourse area were satisfied.

The court found that the charge should have been laid pursuant to regulation 38 rather than regulation 32, as the latter did not provide a sufficient basis for the direction given. Furthermore, the court held that the preconditions for the exercise of the power to issue the direction were not met, as the appellant's intoxication alone was not sufficient to justify the direction without considering other relevant factors. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction for failing to comply with a reasonable direction was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. However, the appeal against the conviction for resisting police was dismissed, as the evidence established that the police officer had reasonable cause to suspect that an offence had been committed.

In summary, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction for failing to comply with a reasonable direction, but upheld the conviction for resisting police. Given that no penalty was imposed by the Magistrate for the latter conviction, no further consideration was necessary. The decision of the Magistrate regarding the conviction for resisting police remained undisturbed.