District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Greenslade v R [2012] NSWDC 255 Hearing dates: 5 December 2012 Decision date: 05 December 2012 Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: Conviction recorded and sentence passed by Downing Centre Local Court on 12 July 2012 set aside.
The charge of resisting arrest is dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Police powers - Whether arrest was lawful - Arrest must be for purpose of taking person before a court to answer a charge Legislation Cited: Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 s 99(3) Cases Cited: Daemar v Corporate Affairs Commission [1990] NSWCA 51
DPP v CAD & Ors [2003] NSWSC 196
DPP v Carr [2002] NSWSC 194
Dungay v R [2001] NSWCCA 443
Fleet v District Court of New South Wales [1999] NSWCA 363
McLiney v Minister [1911] VLR 347
R v Ryan (1890) 11 NSWR 171
Williams v R (1986) 161 CLR 278Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown)
Susan Joanna Greenslade (Appellant)Representation: Ms J Turner (Crown)
Mr T Jones (Appellant)
File Number(s): 2012/086323
Judgment
This is an appeal against a conviction recorded and a sentenced passed by Acting Magistrate Moore sitting in the Downing Centre Local Court on 12 July 2012. The appellant was charged with two offences. The first offence was that between 2.15am and 2.30am on 18 March 2012 at Marrickville she did assault Bronwyn Mathieson. The second charge was that between 4.15am and 4.25am on 18 March 2012 at Marrickville she did resist Michael Hack, he being a constable of police executing his duty.
At about 3am on 18 March 2012, Constable Hack obtained a complaint from Bronwyn Mathieson that Ms Mathieson had been assaulted by her flatmate, the current appellant, earlier on that morning. That complaint was received at the home of a friend of Ms Mathieson, in Livingstone Road, Marrickville, to which she had resorted prior to making a telephone call which caused Constable Hack to attend upon her about 3am.
Constable Hack took Ms Mathieson to the Marrickville police station and obtained a statement from her. Constable Hack then attended the property at 13 Gladstone Street, Marrickville at which the appellant resided and which was the normal place of abode of Ms Mathieson. According to the evidence of Constable Hack, he arrived at the premises at 4.15am. He was in company with Constable Davies, a female constable, and Probationary Constable Schmidt, who is male.
The appellant had been asleep in bed. She gave evidence that she retired to her bed at about 3.15am. She was wearing a blue and white short kimono style dressing gown, which was tied at the front around the waist. She was not wearing any other clothing. She was awoken by a flashing blue light outside her house. Although the blinds to her bedroom were drawn, the blue flashing light pierced into her bedroom, causing her to wake up. In addition, she thought she saw torches being shone through the window of her room, although there appears to be some factual…
Continue reading Greenslade v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Greenslade v The Queen [2012] NSWDC 255
- Case
- [2012] NSWDC 255
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the intent behind it. It found that the arrest did not meet the statutory requirement of being made for the purpose of taking the person before a court to answer a charge. Instead, the arrest appeared to be motivated by the officer's desire to prevent Greenslade from leaving the scene, which did not align with the legal criteria for a valid arrest. Consequently, the court held that the arrest was unlawful, and the subsequent conviction for resisting arrest was also invalid. The court set aside the conviction and dismissed the charge, emphasising the importance of adherence to legal standards in the exercise of police powers.
The Court of Criminal Appeal's decision highlights the necessity for police to strictly follow legal protocols when making arrests. The ruling underscores that arrests must be made with the clear intention of bringing a person before a court to answer a charge, and any deviation from this purpose renders the arrest unlawful. By dismissing the charge of resisting arrest, the court reinforced the principle that unlawful arrests cannot be the basis for subsequent charges. The final orders of the court included setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Downing Centre Local Court on 12 July 2012, and dismissing the charge of resisting arrest.
Orders
Orders of the court
Conviction recorded and sentence passed by Downing Centre Local Court on 12 July 2012 set aside.
The charge of resisting arrest is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.