DPP v Gribble - [2004] NSWSC 926

Reported Decision:
151 A Crim R 256

Supreme Court

CITATION: DPP v Gribble [2004] NSWSC 926

HEARING DATE(S): 17 September 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

DECISION: See para 33.

PARTIES :
Director of Public Prosecutions v Matthew Charles GRIBBLE

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 11878/2004

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: I Bourke
Defendant: A Haesler

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: S C Kavanagh
Defendant: Steve O'Connor

- 13 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUSTICE GRAHAM BARR

8 October 2004

11878/2004 Director of Public Prosecutions v Matthew

Charles GRIBBLE

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: At about 10pm on 24 October 2003 two police officers were driving along a city street when they came upon the defendant wearing dark clothing, standing in the middle of the road. Police directed him to move off the road but he refused. He resisted their efforts to move him to the safety of the footpath. Once the defendant had been removed to the footpath, one of the officers remained with him to stop him going back onto the road while the other called for assistance. As those things were happening the defendant started punching the first police officer. He was arrested and charged with one count of resisting police in the execution of their duty and two counts of assaulting police in the execution of their duty: see ss58, 60 (1) Crimes Act 1900.

2 On 27 February 2004 the defendant appeared before Ms L Gilmour, Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution presented its case, in the course of which the two police officers, Senior Constable Suitor and Senior Constable Duffey, gave evidence. At the conclusion of the prosecution case the solicitor for the defendant moved for a dismissal of the three charges because, it was asserted, no prima facie case had been made out. In an ex tempore judgment the magistrate up held the submission and dismissed the three charges. There was a fourth charge which was being heard concurrently, that the defendant failed to obey a reasonable direction for the safe and efficient regulation of traffic. That charge was not the subject of the no-case submission and the defendant was in due course found to have committed the offence.

3 By his summons filed on 21 June 2004 the plaintiff, the Director of Public Prosecutions, seeks orders setting aside the orders of the Magistrate dismissing the charges and remitting them to the Local Court to be dealt with in accordance with the orders of the Court.

4 The plaintiff submits that the Magistrate erred in law in finding that there was no prima facie case on each of the three offences and as to the test to be applied in determining whether the police were acting in the execution of their duties.

5 Before dealing with the several assertions of error it is convenient to state in somewhat greater detail the facts which the evidence was capable of establishing. There has been put before…

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.

Continue reading DPP v Gribble

Details

AGLC: DPP v Gribble [2004] NSWSC 926
Case: [2004] NSWSC 926
Decision Date: 8 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Gribble involved the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking to overturn a magistrate's decision to dismiss charges against Matthew Charles Gribble, who was accused of resisting and assaulting police officers. The incident occurred when Gribble was found standing in the middle of a busy road, and despite being directed by police officers to move to safety, he refused to comply and subsequently assaulted the officers when they attempted to detain him. The magistrate dismissed the charges on the basis that the police officers were not acting in the execution of their duty when they detained Gribble, and thus, there was no prima facie case.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate erred in finding that the police officers were not acting in the execution of their duty when they detained Gribble, and whether the officers had the authority to detain Gribble to prevent him from re-entering the roadway. The court considered the statutory duties of police officers under the Crimes Act 1900 and the Police Act 1990, which includes the protection of persons from injury or death and property from damage.

The Supreme Court held that the magistrate had erred in her interpretation of the law. The court reasoned that the officers were acting within their duty to protect Gribble and others from harm when they detained him, as he was behaving irrationally and posing a risk to himself and others by standing in the middle of a busy road. The court found that the officers' actions were reasonable under the circumstances and that they were indeed acting in the execution of their duty. Consequently, the court set aside the magistrate's decision and remitted the charges back to the Local Court for further proceedings, ordering Gribble to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders