Legal Research
Cases
James v The King

James v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 140 24 June 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0252

WARREN JAMES	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON P, KENNEDY and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 June 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 140
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v James [2023] VCC 2195 (Judge Chambers)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Applicant convicted of three charges of resist emergency worker on duty – Applicant acquitted of assault emergency worker ‘on duty’ – Whether police ‘on duty’ – Police arrest of applicant – Whether arrest lawful – Whether police believed on reasonable grounds that applicant guilty of offence of assault – Whether jury directed sufficiently concerning lawfulness of applicant’s arrest – Whether open to jury to find applicant’s arrest lawful – Directions insufficient – Not open to jury to find arrest of applicant lawful – Appeal allowed – Applicant acquitted.

Crimes Act 1958, ss 31(1)(b) & (2), 458, 462, 462A, 459; Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 11(b)(i), 12, 13, 14 & 15; Road Safety Act 1986, s 16.

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123, applied.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		In person
Respondent:		Mr J O’Connor
Solicitors
Applicant:	In person
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON P
KENNEDY JA
BOYCE JA:

Introduction

The applicant was a primary school physical education teacher. He taught at a school in rural Victoria. He drove to work on 25 June 2020 in his Nissan utility, parked, and then went inside the school in order to commence work. The applicant’s utility had registration plates affixed to the front and rear. The plates were not of the usual kind. They each bore the word ‘HALLELUJAH’, written in red. Whilst the applicant was at work at the school (apparently conducting a physical education class on the basketball court), three police officers arrived in two vehicles and parked near to the applicant’s vehicle in the school carpark. One of the police officers began removing the front ‘HALLELUJAH’ plate. He was authorised by law to do so. The applicant became aware of what was happening and approached. He protested at the removal of the ‘HALLELUJAH’ plate. Police informed the applicant of the legal basis for the removal of the plate. The applicant tried to take the plate back from the police. A tug‑of‑war over the plate ensued. Police arrested the applicant. A police officer placed the applicant in a headlock. That police officer alleged that the applicant bit him whilst in the headlock. The applicant was capsicum‑sprayed and threatened with a Taser. The applicant was ultimately handcuffed.
A County Court jury acquitted the applicant of one charge of assaulting an emergency worker on duty. This charge related to the alleged bite. But the applicant was found guilty of three charges of resisting an emergency worker ‘on duty’.[1] Each charge of resist was made referable to each individual police officer. The applicant’s…

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 James v The King

Details

AGLC: James v The King [2025] VSCA 140
Case: [2025] VSCA 140
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In James v The King, the applicant was convicted of resisting emergency workers on duty, but acquitted of assaulting an emergency worker ‘on duty’. The appeal centred on whether the police were ‘on duty’ at the time of the arrest, the lawfulness of the arrest, and the jury's understanding of the legal criteria for a lawful arrest. The court had to determine whether the jury was correctly directed concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and if it was open to the jury to find the arrest lawful.

The legal issues included whether the police were ‘on duty’ during the arrest, whether the applicant’s arrest was lawful, and if the jury was adequately directed concerning the criteria for a lawful arrest. The applicant argued that the directions given to the jury concerning the lawfulness of the arrest were insufficient and that it was not open to the jury to find the arrest lawful. The court examined the statutory provisions under the Crimes Act 1958, the Jury Directions Act 2015, and the Road Safety Act 1986 to resolve these issues.

The court found that the jury directions were insufficient as they did not adequately address the criteria for a lawful arrest. The court held that the jury was not correctly directed concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and that it was not open to the jury to find the arrest lawful. The court applied precedents from M v The Queen and Pell v The Queen in its reasoning. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the applicant was acquitted.

The court ordered the applicant's acquittal on the charge of resisting emergency workers on duty, as the jury's verdict on that count could not stand without the proper legal directions on the lawfulness of the arrest.

Orders