Mangurra v Rigby

The case of Mangurra v Rigby involved the appellant, Mangurra, challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained through the use of a taser by police officers. The issue before the court was whether the use of the taser constituted an "improper" method of obtaining evidence under s 138(1) of the Uniform Evidence Act. Mangurra argued that the police conduct was clearly inconsistent with the minimum standards expected from law enforcement officers, while the respondent contended that the non-compliance with general orders did not necessarily render the officers' actions improper. The court had to determine whether the police conduct was "improper" within the meaning of s 138(1) and whether the evidence obtained should be excluded.

The court considered whether the police officers' conduct was clearly inconsistent with the minimum standards expected and required of law enforcement officers. It held that while it might be reasonably possible that the force used was unnecessary, it was another thing to say that the officers' actions were clearly inconsistent with the minimum standards. The officers were attempting to effect a lawful arrest in a rapidly developing situation where the appellant was non-compliant and demonstrating pre-attack indicators. The court found that the officers' conduct was not high-handed or in contumelious disregard of regulations or orders, and the arrest was made in good faith for the purposes of bringing the appellant before a justice. Therefore, the court concluded that the conduct of the officers was not "improper" within the meaning of s 138(1).

Based on the reasoning above, the court decided that the evidence obtained through the use of the taser was not obtained improperly and should not be excluded under s 138(1). The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the lower court were upheld.