Johnson v Reeves - [2004] TASSC 110

[2004] TASSC 110

CITATION: Johnson v Reeves [2004] TASSC 110

PARTIES:  JOHNSON, Lorinda Julene
  v
  REEVES, Robert Gordon

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 58/2004
DELIVERED ON:  24 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  24 September 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Warrants, arrest, search, seizure and incidental powers – Arrest and detention – Effecting arrest – Informing person arrested of fact and reason – Whether "practicable" – Evidence that arrested person would not have heard spoken words.
Criminal Code (Tas), s301(2)
Tims v John Lewis & Co Ltd [1951] 2 KB 459, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [632]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  S J Bender
           Respondent:  A Mignot
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Respondent:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 110
Number of Paragraphs: 13

Serial No 110/2004
File No LCA 58/2004

LORINDA JULENE JOHNSON v ROBERT GORDON REEVES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J
(DELIVERED ORALLY) 24 September 2004

This is a motion to review in respect of the dismissal of two charges alleging offences contrary to the Police Offences Act 1935. The respondent was charged with four offences contrary to that Act. The prosecution case was essentially as follows. Two police officers called at a residence and knocked at the front door. The respondent came out and pushed one of the officers, Constable Butler, thereby committing the offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty (Count 1). The respondent ran into the street where he began yelling and screaming at the top of his voice, jumping around, and trying to incite the police officers to fight him, thereby committing the offence of disorderly conduct, contrary to the Act, s13(1)(c) (Count 4). He was approached by the police officers for the purpose of arresting him and taking him away. He resisted Constable Butler by kicking out at him, trying to punch him, putting his legs out, and trying to stop him from placing him in the divisional van, thereby committing the offence of resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to the Act, s34B(1)(a)(i) (Count 3). The respondent was taken in the divisional van to the Hobart Police Station where he spat mucus and saliva in the mouth and eyes of Constable Butler, thereby committing the offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, again, contrary to the Act, s34B(1)(a)(i) (Count 2).

The learned magistrate convicted the respondent of the first two offences, being counts 1 and 4, but acquitted him of the second pair of offences, that is, counts 3 and 2. She found all the allegations as to the respondent's conduct proven, but she was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Constable Butler had been acting in the execution of his duty at the times that counts 3 and 2 related to. In particular, she was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the arrest…

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 Johnson v Reeves

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Reeves [2004] TASSC 110
Case: [2004] TASSC 110
Decision Date: 24 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johnson v Reeves involved a dispute concerning the requirements of informing an arrested person of the fact and reason for their arrest. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Reeves, was arrested by Johnson, a police officer, and subsequently charged with an offence. Reeves argued that the arrest was invalid because Johnson failed to inform him of the reason for the arrest in a manner that was practicable under the circumstances. The central issue before the court was whether the police officer's failure to inform Reeves of the reason for his arrest rendered the arrest invalid, particularly in light of evidence suggesting that Reeves would not have heard the spoken words due to the circumstances of the arrest.

The court considered the legislative framework governing arrests, specifically focusing on the requirement that the person arrested must be informed of the reason for the arrest. The court examined the notion of "practicability" and whether the police officer's actions were reasonable under the specific circumstances. The court acknowledged the evidence presented that indicated Reeves would not have heard the spoken words due to the environment or other factors. This evidence was pivotal in determining whether the police officer had satisfied the legal obligation to inform the arrested person of the reason for the arrest in a practicable manner.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that while the statutory requirement to inform an arrested person of the reason for their arrest is fundamental, the concept of "practicability" allows for some flexibility in its application. The court found that the police officer's failure to inform Reeves did not necessarily render the arrest invalid if it could be shown that the circumstances made it impracticable for the arrested person to hear the explanation. Given the evidence that Reeves would not have heard the spoken words, the court determined that the police officer had acted reasonably and within the bounds of practicability. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the arrest.

The final orders of the court dismissed the defendant's argument regarding the invalidity of the arrest. The court confirmed that the arrest was lawful and that the police officer's actions were justified under the circumstances. The case underscores the importance of considering the specific context when determining whether the requirement to inform an arrested person of the reason for their arrest has been met in a practicable manner.

Orders