MA v Police

This matter concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia by the appellant, Ma, against a decision of a single judge who had dismissed his appeal from a Magistrate’s finding of guilt. The appellant was charged with possessing police property, specifically an identification card and a shirt, contrary to section 74(2) of the *Police Act 1998* (SA). The central dispute revolved around whether the items constituted "police property" as defined by the Act and whether the appellant had a lawful excuse for their possession.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Magistrate had erred in finding that the identification card and shirt were "police property" under the *Police Act* and whether the appellant had a lawful excuse for possessing these items. The appellant contended that the Magistrate had mistakenly applied case law, leading to an erroneous ruling on both the definition of police property and the existence of a lawful excuse.

The Full Court considered the definition of "police property" in section 74(4) of the *Police Act*, which defines it as property supplied, or to be supplied, to a police officer for official purposes. The Magistrate had interpreted this broadly, finding that a police identification card, even though issued to the appellant and not an actual police officer, was still "police property" as it was of a kind uniquely supplied to police officers for official purposes. However, the Full Court disagreed, finding that the literal meaning of the definition, which focused on property actually supplied to a police officer, was the correct interpretation. The Court examined the historical context of the provision, noting that earlier iterations of the *Police Act* clearly focused on items issued to police officers. The Court also considered the appellant's explanation regarding his understanding of possession, noting that English was not his first language and he was unrepresented.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Magistrate had erred in his interpretation of "police property". Consequently, the convictions for possessing the identification card and the shirt were quashed.