King v Police - [2007] SASC 93

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
KING v POLICE
[2007] SASC 93
Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle (ex tempore)
13 March 2007
MAGISTRATES - APPEALS FROM AND CONTROL OVER MAGISTRATES - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - INTERPRETATION ACTS AND CLAUSES - PARTICULAR ACTS & ORDINANCES - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Appeal against conviction – appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court on a charge of trespass on premises in breach of s 17A of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) – appellant refused to leave the campus of the University of South Australia after being instructed to do so by an authorised person – appellant set up stall for the distribution of political literature without prior permission – whether the nature of the trespass was such as to interfere with the enjoyment of the premises by the occupier – interpretation of s 17A(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) – in the circumstances appellant interfered with the occupier’s right of management.
Held: appeal dismissed.
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 17A, referred to.
Semple v Mant (1985) 39 SASR 282, considered.

KING v POLICE
[2007] SASC 93
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

DOYLE CJ (ex tempore): This is an appeal against a conviction recorded by the Magistrates Court.
The appeal raises the question of whether, when Mr King trespassed on land owned and occupied by the University of South Australia, the “nature of the trespass” was “such as to interfere with the enjoyment of the premises by the occupier”. Unless it was, Mr King is not guilty of the offence.
The offence charged is created by s 17A(1) of the Summary Offences Act1953 (SA). That provision reads as follows:
17A Trespassers on premises
(1) Where -
(a)a person trespasses on premises; and
(b)the nature of the trespass is such as to interfere with the enjoyment of the premises by the occupier; and
(c)the trespasser is asked by an authorised person to leave the premises,
The trespasser is, if he or she fails to leave the premises forthwith or again trespasses on the premises within 24 hours of being asked to leave, guilty of an offence.
There is no dispute about the Magistrate’s findings of fact. I will summarise them.
The University of South Australia owns and occupies land at Magill, which it uses for the purpose of teaching and for other University activities.
On 21 February 2006 Mr King, with a few other people, set up a small stall on that land. The stall comprised three card tables. On the tables Mr King and his companions displayed pamphlets and books, intended to promote the aims of a group to which he belonged. This was during what is called orientation week. It is the sort of activity that one would expect to occur at that time.
However, Mr King was not a student of the University, and neither he nor his companions had permission to…

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 King v Police

Details

AGLC: King v Police [2007] SASC 93
Case: [2007] SASC 93
Decision Date: 13 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court involved an appeal against a conviction rendered by the Magistrates Court. The appellant had been found guilty of trespassing on the premises of the University of South Australia in violation of section 17A of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA). The conviction arose after the appellant refused to vacate the university campus when directed to do so by an authorised individual. The appellant had set up a stall on campus for the distribution of political literature without obtaining the necessary permissions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's conduct constituted an interference with the enjoyment of the premises by the occupier, as required by section 17A(1)(b) of the Act. The appellant argued that the mere act of setting up a stall did not necessarily interfere with the university’s management or operation of the premises. The court was required to determine the extent to which the appellant's actions impacted the occupier's right to manage the premises and whether such actions amounted to a trespass under the statute.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the specific wording of section 17A(1)(b) and the context in which it was applied. The court found that the appellant's actions did indeed interfere with the university's right to manage its premises, as the unauthorised distribution of literature and the presence of the stall constituted an infringement of the university's control over its property. The court held that the appellant's conduct was sufficient to meet the statutory requirement of interfering with the occupier’s management of the premises, and thus upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction rendered by the Magistrates Court. The court's decision highlighted the importance of respecting the rights of occupiers to manage their premises and underscored the seriousness of unauthorised activities on private property. The appellant's conviction for trespassing was thereby maintained, reflecting the court’s interpretation of the statutory provisions in question.

Orders