Lepadatu v Police - [1999] SASC 400

LEPADATU V POLICE

[1999] SASC 400

Magistrate’s Appeal

1 MARTIN J. The appellant was found guilty of resisting three named police officers in the execution of their duty contrary to s 6(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1953. The notice of appeal identified two grounds of appeal; that the Magistrate erred in law in finding that the police had a right to arrest the appellant and that the finding in favour of the power to arrest was against the weight of the evidence. On the hearing of the appeal the appellant also argued three additional grounds. First, it was contended that the count upon which the appellant was tried was duplicitous because it charged him with having resisted three police officers in the execution of their duty. Secondly, it was said that the Magistrate erred in his finding of guilt because he found that the appellant resisted two police officers when he was charged with resisting three officers. Finally, it was submitted that in all the circumstances the verdict of guilty was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
2 The charge arose out of a domestic dispute. Police were called when the appellant’s daughter ran to a neighbour’s house for help following an alleged assault by the appellant upon his wife and his daughter. In the meantime the appellant took his wife to the Flinders Medical Centre, but was asked to leave after causing a disturbance and threatening a security officer. He returned home while his wife remained at hospital.
3 Constables Adey and Brooks attended at the neighbour’s house. They took the appellant’s daughter to a friend’s home because she did not want to return to her own home. The officers then attended at the appellant’s home to check on the welfare of the appellant’s wife, but were informed by the appellant’s other daughter that her mother had been taken to the hospital. At the hospital the police were advised that the appellant had left, but that he had assaulted his wife and hospital staff. Constable Adey gave evidence that, on the basis of the information he had received, he decided to arrest the appellant. Constable Brooks said she had not decided to arrest the appellant at that time.
4 The police then drove to the appellant’s residence. Upon arrival, according to evidence given by Constable Adey which was accepted by the Magistrate the following occurred:
"A. First of all we knocked on the door, Mr Lepadatu answered the door. Stefan Lepadatu answered the door and left the main wire door opened, the main door. Left the wire door closed. He said ‘yes’.
I said "We are from Sturt police can you come outside so we can talk to you?’
He said ‘You can talk to me here.
Constable Brooks said ‘We would like to talk to you in private away from your young daughter?’
He said ‘Why what about.’
Constable Brooks said ‘We have received information that you assaulted your wife giving her a black eye and also assaulted your 16…

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 Lepadatu v Police

Details

AGLC: Lepadatu v Police [1999] SASC 400
Case: [1999] SASC 400
Decision Date: 23 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lepadatu v Police involved an appeal by the appellant against a conviction for resisting arrest by three police officers. The appellant argued that the Magistrate had erred in law by finding that the police had the right to arrest him and that the finding in favour of the power to arrest was against the weight of the evidence. The appellant also raised additional grounds for appeal, including that the charge was duplicitous, that the Magistrate erred in finding the appellant guilty of resisting two police officers instead of three, and that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The case arose from a domestic dispute where the appellant was alleged to have assaulted his wife and daughter and a security officer at the Flinders Medical Centre. The police attended the appellant’s home and arrested him after he refused to leave the premises and resisted their entry.

The court had to decide whether the police had the lawful right to arrest the appellant and if the charge against him was duplicitous. The court also had to consider if the Magistrate's finding of guilt was against the weight of the evidence and whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court found that the police had the lawful right to arrest the appellant, and the charge against him was not duplicitous as it involved a single set of circumstances. The court also found that the Magistrate’s finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence, and the verdict was safe and satisfactory.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the police were lawfully exercising their power of arrest and that the charge against the appellant was not duplicitous. The court also found that the Magistrate’s finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence and that the verdict was safe and satisfactory. The court exercised its power of amendment to correct the number of police officers to which the complaint referred.

Orders