Lackenby v Kirkman

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the appeal by Daniel Peter Lackenby against his conviction for obstructing a public officer was heard by Blaxell J on 12 May 2006. The conviction arose from Lackenby's refusal to provide fingerprints while in lawful custody, as requested by Constable Anthony Charles Kirkman. The central issue was whether Constable Kirkman had a lawful basis under s 50AA of the Police Act 1892-2004 (WA) to request Lackenby's fingerprints, given that he already had sufficient information to identify him. The court had to determine if Constable Kirkman's request for fingerprints was justified under the statute, considering his awareness of Lackenby's identity.

Blaxell J held that Constable Kirkman's request for fingerprints was not justified under s 50AA because the officer failed to demonstrate that the fingerprints were necessary or desirable for identifying Lackenby in court. The court found that the term "identification" in the statute refers to the identification of the accused in court, not merely the identification by the arresting officer. Therefore, even if Constable Kirkman was satisfied with Lackenby's identity at the time of arrest, he still needed to consider whether fingerprints were necessary for future identification purposes in court. The reasoning was supported by authorities from New Zealand and New South Wales, which emphasized that the need for identification in court could arise in various circumstances, including the transfer or death of officers who originally identified the accused.

Consequently, the court quashed Lackenby's conviction and substituted a verdict of acquittal. The appeal was allowed on the basis that Constable Kirkman did not validly exercise his discretion under s 50AA. Additionally, Lackenby was granted his costs for the appeal and the trial in the summary court.